Necro Mancer (Twitter)

RT @solonko1648: Прикра неприємність окупантів на Покровському напрямку. Чим більше таких неприємностей, тим краще.

Colby Badhwar 🇨🇦🇬🇧 (Twitter)

🇺🇸🇪🇪 Estonia has taken receipt of 6 M142 HIMARS from Lockheed Martin in a ceremony at their plant in Camden, AR.

The 6 HIMARS, along with associated ammunition (GMLRS, ATACMS), were ordered via a ~$200 million Foreign Military Sales case, signed in Dec 2022, following approval in July 2022.

The 6 HIMARS will be shipped to Estonia in the coming months and will be fully operational this summer. Estonian artillerymen have already been training at Fort Sill, OK, with other FMS customers since last year.

Necro Mancer (Twitter)

@toxic_expat: Сообщения не были отправлены

IgorGirkin (Twitter)

RT @BackAndAlive: «ШАРКи» від ПЖ влаштувались в ГУР 😈

Вони невтомно працюють в руках професіоналів і допомагають знаходити та знешкоджувати різноманітні цілі 💥

Одні з менш очевидних, але не менш важливих – ворожі антени, які заважають нашим військовим виконувати задачі.

Necro Mancer (Twitter)

Жалко квадрик, только ж починили (смотреть со звуком)
t.me/russianocontext/5895 #всрф #потерьнет

Status-6 (Twitter)

🇺🇸🇷🇺 | Russian Foreign Ministry spox Maria Zakharova: Moscow calls on US President Trump and his administration to correct the mistakes made by Biden and his team regarding the situation around Ukraine.

Colby Badhwar 🇨🇦🇬🇧 (Twitter)

RT @FRHoffmann1: Imagine living in a world where North Korea supplies 300 times more missiles to Russia than Germany is able to produce in a year at the current production rate (zero for those who aren't aware). https://twitter.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1882194341197660395#m

Colby Badhwar 🇨🇦🇬🇧 (Twitter)

@Plasmapott85261: Ukraine doesn't need more launchers they need more ammo.

Colby Badhwar 🇨🇦🇬🇧 (Twitter)

@artur_esg @TotalKonsult: 96 HIMARS are being built every year. What planet do you live on?

The Lookout (Twitter)

RT @Stanovaya: Reuters, citing its sources, reports that Putin believes key war objectives have already been achieved, including securing land connecting mainland Russia to Crimea and weakening Ukraine’s military. It also notes his awareness of the economic strain caused by the war. The article indirectly suggests that these factors might make Putin more inclined to strike a deal with Trump to end the war, given its cost and the claimed achievement of strategic goals.

I strongly disagree with this interpretation. This perspective oversimplifies and misrepresents Putin’s position. While it is true that Putin has gained territory and "secured" (in his vision) the land bridge to Crimea, as well as inflicted significant damage on Ukraine’s military—something Russian officials have openly stated for months—these "achievements" do not mean he is prepared to stop.

If Putin were to halt the war now, Ukraine would likely accelerate efforts to join NATO and rebuild its military-industrial complex. Even if NATO membership remains a distant prospect, the alliance would solidify its presence in Ukraine, precisely what Putin sought to prevent by launching the war. His goal was to end what he calls the “anti-Russia project” on Ukrainian territory. In his view, stopping now would lead to an even more radicalized “anti-Russia” project in the remainder of Ukraine. This is central to his reasoning.

The article also emphasizes Putin’s concerns about the economy, but this issue is more nuanced. First, there are genuine, objective concerns about economic performance. Putin is aware of these issues and, while it may not be his primary focus, he understands that economic stability is critical to sustaining his policies. However, the situation is far from catastrophic, and economic concerns alone are unlikely to exert enough pressure to force a shift in his geopolitical strategy.

We should avoid overestimating the impact of these economic concerns on Putin’s plans for Ukraine. In my view, no matter the economic situation, Putin will persist in seeking to end the war on Russian terms. For him, this is an existential conflict. He is deeply committed to the idea that without a “friendly Ukraine,” Russia’s long-term survival is at risk. Many in Moscow may be alarmed by this view, but Putin is resolute, believing he must achieve his goals at any cost.

Thus, the assumption that economic troubles will compel Putin to compromise is fundamentally flawed. Economic pressure alone will not dictate his approach to Ukraine. If Putin were no longer in power, the dynamics might change significantly, as much of Russia’s leadership does not share his level of obsession with Ukraine. But that is a separate discussion entirely.

‌The Lookout (Twitter)

"We should avoid overestimating the impact of these economic concerns on Putin’s plans for Ukraine. In my view, no matter the economic situation, Putin will persist in seeking to end the war on Russian terms. For him, this is an existential conflict."

Colby Badhwar 🇨🇦🇬🇧 (Twitter)

RT @bctallis: Robert Wilkie - Head of Trump's Pentagon Transition Team - delivers clear messages on likely Trump admin positions to:

1. Putin - Stop the war in Ukraine or we'll give Zelensky everything he needs & will unleash US energy & economic power to bankrupt Russia.

2. Allies - Need to spend 3% on defence, at least. Specifically notes UK & France need to do this - & saves special mention for Germany needing to step up.

3. Ukraine - Need to mobilise 18-25 year olds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00274zq
[From BBC Radio 4 Today programme interview 21/01 from 1h34mins]

IgorGirkin (Twitter)

Pokrovsk direction, 68 defense action 🫡