More likely the landmine doctrine. By taking out the recovery vehicle they essentially get two vehicles out of the fight, and the Russians might try and recover both.
Maybe they targeted the recovery vehicle because it is more useful to capture the Armata and send it to the Americans for reverse-engineering and intelligence gathering.
I would suppose that depends on what NATO's response is. They could swiftly disable Russia's conventional forces in Ukraine and the Black Sea without creating an existential threat to Moscow, which is what I expect it would take to provoke nuclear warfare.
To disable Russian forces in ukraine youd have (my opinion, truth is probably more complicated and I’m definitely not an expert) probably to invade Russia and encircle the Russian forces. You could also drive the Russian forces through ukraine which would probably be a lot more costly when it comes to losses. Either one might make china compelled to aid Russia in some form or anotehr which wouldn’t be great
Ukraine is on its way to pushing Russia out without even getting close to the bleeding edge of NATO technology. The argument is whether or not NATO would even need boots on the ground to push Russia out. And then the next step of argument is whether the boots on the ground need to be anything but advisory.
Tanks getting bested by homemade bombers made with literal delivery drones holding anti tank ordinance, and now the whole black sea fleet’s getting pwned by kamikaze rc boats
Chris Christie is running for president. His polling is abysmal, but who knows what happens if Trump's support collapses.
Zelensky doesn't want to appear partisan and risk alienating the republican party in the middle of a war, given Ukraine relies on continued US support, so he'll happily shake the hand of anyone and everyone if that helps.
noncredibledefense
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.