After three years and a million casualties, Russia has discovered something that even the ancient Romans knew: combining different types of weapons creates a synergy more lethal than the sum of its parts.

Simply stupid.

Especially considering that even in this war what he described was already done in Battle of Donbass without glide bombs (which kind of undermines the last self-congratulatory part), as Schryver described long before him. https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/a-birds-eye-view-of-ukraine-warhtml

losing more than 1,000-plus soldiers per day.

Repeats it, this time with an explicit reference… to Ukrainian propaganda, which all this time multiplied achievements more than USSR did at its worst.

Russia captured close to 4,000 square kilometers (1,500 square miles) in 2024, its greatest gains since the early days of the Russian invasion in February 2022.

Why does he think it matters, and even constitutes meaningful “gains”? I mean, there was “Muh Lebensraum” lazy nonsense, and there was bogus metrics lazy nonsense (Schryver mocked it back in 2022 https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/destroying-mother-of-all-proxy-armieshtml ), which one it even is?

The Russian Air Force proved a major disappointment for most of the war, deterred by Ukrainian air defenses from providing desperately needed close air support to the ground troops.

Even mostly-obsolete Soviet air defenses are indeed dangerous, and obviously it’s better to have close air support than do without. But where the notion of it being “desperately needed” in this case came from? Especially considering amount of artillery and missiles doing similar jobs. I did not see mentions of this being a major problem before, so going on a limb here: maybe this time he parroted opinions of those Americans who compared reports with their own safari wars?

despite Putin’s faith in wonder weapons,

Is it the famous “always project” thing?

The best answer is that Russia’s offensive triangle only works under the specific conditions in Ukraine. Russian bombers enjoy sanctuary behind the front lines because Ukraine lacks long-range air-to-air missiles to pick them off.

Lacks why?

Never mind countermeasures (more of a problem at longer ranges), but “picking off” without exposing themselves? How? Employing Ghost of Kiev™? Otherwise, it’s down to risks and replacement rates. And, well…

Mass drone attacks would be a problem for NATO and other nations that lack air defense and electronic warfare capabilities. [...] That triangle would be disrupted by NATO airpower that could target key links in the triangle, especially Russian strike aircraft as well as artillery.

At least not claiming that today Patriot could suffice as having air defense capabilities.

But what “airpower”? Russian air force is not going to charge at the old Soviet air defenses, yet NATO could go taunt the latest generation of their descendants?
Besides, the best way to kill aircraft was spelled out back before WWII, and it never was air-to-air. Where this “airpower” would have to come from, to not be prey for cruising and ballistic missiles while on the ground (and much more than this on carriers)?

Or does he really think there’s nothing but “magic triad” behind it?