Tactics with tanks I'll explain in a minute. ICBM's aren't hypersonic until re-entry. They leave orbit align and re-enter. Effectively there are better defenses, but freaking nukes with multiple warheads, not much defense. Those Hypersonics are cruise. Almost impossible to detect. Cruise don't leave atmosphere. They stay in orbit. Detection is much harder and that speed unmatched. But there are perhaps some defenses largely in development and being fitted. Like Lasers.

Tanks are needed. Autonomous tanks sooner. But are simple tactics. Why couldn't they largely surrender like some places perhaps like Kherson. They wouldn't be complaining about huge causalities. In which case tanks often beat a standing army on the field. Trenches bunkers opposing tanks. Urban environment there is far more ambush. Unless they cut off any access further surrounding a city, backed by artillery, inch forward, bombarding. They are used in cities but much harder with anti tank and drones. But they're an integral part of warfare, not going anywhere.

Satellite weapons haven't been admitted but there are rumors, and any treaty arming space was cancelled by Trump. There are anti satellite weapons. Although attacking them has huge consequences for space, it causes debries, also potential war. Satellites can spy and with increasing precision, penetrating cover.

Russia will upgrade its entire army next. And they haven't lost, far from it.

But it's remarkable the fake news and the propaganda. Decrying the Russians as capitulated. Obviously the only argument becomes, if Ukraine weren't armed there wouldn't be refugees. If they choose peace, why did they want war. Pathetic they thought somebody else should rescue them, and fight their war, and give them guns to die, and not make peace. But it's Ukraine. It's only objective was a human shield, dent Russia, bog them down, and swamp them into surrender, as any sanctions bite. Hold out for Custer you dumb Alamo. He's not coming.

Tactics with tanks I'll explain in a minute. ICBM's aren't hypersonic until re-entry. They leave orbit align and re-enter. Effectively there are better defenses, but freaking nukes with multiple warheads, not much defense. Those Hypersonics are cruise. Almost impossible to detect. Cruise don't leave atmosphere. They stay in orbit. Detection is much harder and that speed unmatched. But there are perhaps some defenses largely in development and being fitted. Like Lasers.

Tanks are needed. Autonomous tanks sooner. But are simple tactics. Why couldn't they largely surrender like some places perhaps like Kherson. They wouldn't be complaining about huge causalities. In which case tanks often beat a standing army on the field. Trenches bunkers opposing tanks. Urban environment there is far more ambush. Unless they cut off any access further surrounding a city, backed by artillery, inch forward, bombarding. They are used in cities but much harder with anti tank and drones. But they're an integral part of warfare, not going anywhere.

Satellite weapons haven't been admitted but there are rumors, and any treaty arming space was cancelled by Trump. There are anti satellite weapons. Although attacking them has huge consequences for space it causes debries, also potential war. Satellites can spy and with increasing precision, penetrating cover.

Russia will upgrade its entire army next. And they haven't lost, far from it.

But it's remarkable the fake news and the propaganda. Decrying the Russians as capitulated. Obviously the only argument becomes, if Ukraine weren't armed there wouldn't be refugees. If they choose peace, why did they want war. Pathetic they thought somebody else should rescue them, and fight their war, and give them guns to die, and not make peace. But it's Ukraine. It's only objective was a human shield, dent Russia, bog them down, and swamp them into surrender, as any sanctions bite. Hold out for Custer you dumb Alamo. He's not coming.

Tactics with tanks I'll explain in a minute. ICBM's aren't hypersonic until re-entry. They leave orbit align and re-enter. Effectively there are better defenses, but freaking nukes with multiple warheads, not much defense. Those Hypersonics are cruise. Almost impossible to detect. Cruise don't leave atmosphere. They stay in orbit. Detection is much harder and that speed unmatched. But there are perhaps some defenses largely in development and being fitted. Like Lasers.

Tanks are needed. Autonomous tanks sooner. But are simple tactics. Why couldn't they largely surrender like some places perhaps like Kherson. They wouldn't be complaining about huge causalities. In which case tanks often beat a standing army on the field. Trenches bunkers opposing tanks. Urban environment there is far more ambush. Unless they cut off any access further surrounding a city, backed by artillery, inch forward, bombarding. They are used in cities but much harder with anti tank and drones. But they're an integral part of warfare, not going anywhere.

Satellite weapons haven't been admitted but there are rumors, and any treaty arming space was cancelled by Trump. There are anti satellite weapons. Although attacking them has huge consequences for space it causes debries, also potential war. Satellites can spy and with increasing precision, penetrating cover.

Russia will upgrade its entire army next. And they haven't lost, far from it.

But it's remarkable the fake news and the propaganda. Decrying the Russians as capitulated. Obviously the only argument becomes, if Ukraine weren't armed there wouldn't be refugees. If they choose peace, why did they want war. Pathetic they thought somebody else should rescue them and fight their war, and give them guns to die, and not make peace. But it's Ukraine. It's only objective was a human shield, dent Russia, Ukraine, bog them down and swamp them into surrender. Hold out for Custer you dumb Alamo. He's not coming.

Tactics with tanks I'll explain in a minute. ICBM's aren't hypersonic until re-entry. They leave orbit align and re-enter. Effectively there are better defenses, but freaking nukes with multiple warheads, not much defense. Those Hypersonics are cruise. Almost impossible to detect. Cruise don't leave atmosphere. They stay in orbit. Detection is much harder and that speed unmatched. But there are perhaps some defenses largely in development and being fitted. Like Lasers.

Tanks are needed. Autonomous tanks sooner. But are simple tactics. Why couldn't they largely surrender like some places perhaps like Kherson. They wouldn't be complaining about huge causalities. In which case tanks often beat a standing army on the field. Trenches bunkers opposing tanks. Urban environment there is far more ambush. Unless they cut off any access further surrounding a city, backed by artillery, inch forward, bombarding. They are used in cities but much harder with anti tank and drones. But they're an integral part of warfare, not going anywhere.

Satellite weapons haven't been admitted but there are rumors, and any treaty arming space was cancelled by Trump. There are anti satellite weapons. Although attacking them has huge consequences for space it causes debries, also potential war. Satellites can spy and with increasing precision, penetrating cover.

Russia will upgrade its entire army next. And they haven't lost, far from it.

But it's remarkable the fake news and the propaganda. Decrying the Russians as capitulated. Obviously the only argument becomes, if they weren't armed there wouldn't be refugees. If they choose peace, why did they want war. Pathetic they thought somebody else should rescue them. Fight their war, and give them guns to die and not make peace. But it's Ukraine. It's only objective was a human shield, dent Russia, Ukraine, bog them down and swamp them into surrender. Hold out for Custer you dumb Alamo. He's not coming.

Tactics with tanks I'll explain in a minute. ICBM's aren't hypersonic until re-entry. They leave orbit align and re-enter. Effectively there are better defenses, but freaking nukes with multiple warheads, not much defense. Those Hypersonics are cruise. Almost impossible to detect. Cruise don't leave atmosphere. They stay in orbit. Detection is much harder and that speed unmatched. But there are perhaps some defenses largely in development and being fitted. Like Lasers.

Tanks are needed. Autonomous tanks sooner. But are simple tactics. Why couldn't they largely surrender like some places perhaps like Kherson. They wouldn't be complaining about huge causalities. In which case tanks often beat a standing army on the field. Trenches bunkers opposing tanks. Urban environment there is far more ambush. Unless they cut off any access further surrounding a city, backed by artillery, inch forward, bombarding. They are used in cities but much harder with anti tank and drones. But they're an integral part of warfare, not going anywhere.

Satellite weapons haven't been admitted but there are rumors, and any treaty arming space was cancelled by Trump. There are anti satellite weapons. Although attacking them has huge consequences for space it causes debries, also potential war. Satellites can spy and with increasing precision, penetrating cover.

Russia will upgrade its entire army next. And they haven't lost, far from it.

But it's remarkable the fake news and the propaganda. Decrying the Russians as capitulated. Obviously the only argument becomes, if they weren't armed there wouldn't be refugees. If they choose peace, why did they want war.

Tactics with tanks I'll explain in a minute. ICBM's aren't hypersonic until re-entry. They leave orbit align and re-enter. Effectively there are better defenses, but freaking nukes with multiple warheads, not much defense. Those Hypersonics are cruise. Almost impossible to detect. Cruise don't leave atmosphere. They stay in orbit. Detection is much harder and that speed unmatched. But there are perhaps some defenses largely in development and being fitted. Like Lasers.

Tanks are needed. Autonomous tanks sooner. But are simple tactics. Why couldn't they largely surrender like some places perhaps like Kherson. They wouldn't be complaining about huge causalities. In which case tanks often beat a standing army on the field. Trenches bunkers opposing tanks. Urban environment there is far more ambush. Unless they cut off any access further surrounding a city, backed by artillery, inch forward, bombarding. They are used in cities but much harder with anti tank and drones. But they're an integral part of warfare, not going anywhere.

Satellite weapons haven't been admitted but there are rumors, and any treaty arming space was cancelled by Trump. There are anti satellite weapons. Although attacking them has huge consequences for space it causes debries, also potential war. Satellites can spy and with increasing precision, penetrating cover.

Tactics with tanks I'll explain in a minute. ICBM's aren't hypersonic until re-entry. They leave orbit align and re-enter. Effectively there are better defenses, but freaking nukes with multiple warheads, not much defense. Those Hypersonics are cruise. Almost impossible to detect. Cruise don't leave atmosphere. They stay in orbit. Detection is much harder and that speed unmatched. But there are perhaps some defenses largely in development and being fitted. Like Lasers.

Tanks are needed. Automous tanks sooner. But are simple tactics. Why couldn't they largely surrender like some places perhaps like Kherson. They wouldn't be complaining about huge causalities. In which case tanks often beat a standing army on the field. Trenches bunkers opposing tanks. Urban environment there is far more ambush. Unless they cut off any access further surrounding a city, backed by artillery, inch forward, bombarding. They are used in cities but much harder with anti tank and drones. But they're an integral part of warfare, not going anywhere.

Satellite weapons haven't been admitted but there are rumors, and any treaty arming space was cancelled by Trump. There are anti satellite weapons. Although attacking them has huge consequences for space it causes debries, also potential war. Satellites can spy and with increasing precision, penetrating cover.