I've been following operational analyses of the war pretty closely. While everyone acknowledges the great value of the new surveillance capabilities, there is an emerging consensus that the "new shiny thing" weapons haven't had nearly as much effect as anticipated. Even Ukrainian officials have been emphasizing to the West that they really need more of good old fashioned artillery rather than more gadgetry. So, articles saying "We're winning because of tech." seem to be going against the message that the leadership is now trying to put out.
It's a Russian media outlet famous for investigations of high profile corruption (one of the many blocked by government for “unpatriotic” discourse).
I don't think this article is that much aligned with media spectacle about “good guys” vs “bad guys”. It's not even strictly focused on current war, many mentioned topics go further, and provide food for thought for people everywhere.
Also, there are other non-shallow articles on the website that are worth a read, in my opinion.
Ah, my mistake about nationality. Even if I don't agree with all the analysis, it's interesting to see what kind of conversation is going on inside Russia.
> there is an emerging consensus that the "new shiny thing" weapons haven't had nearly as much effect as anticipated
I don't think there's a consensus. The things are all different: some underperform, some others are awesome, and sometimes this even depends on the environment.
For instance, these high-tech anti-tank missiles (NLAW, Javelin, Stugna-P) were awesome around Kyiv (many places to hide in a forest or urban environment), less so in a prairie. South and East of Ukraine is a prairie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic%E2%80%93Caspian_steppe
Ie when the tanks were used in a zerg rush. As soon as they changed the tactics to a proper infantry support the usability dropped to your average not-so-high-tech AT levels.
Another thing may be that reactive armor works. I read a Russian report claiming that only 1 in 10 Javelin strikes resulted in a tank kill. That's a plausible claim if you consider that Javelins are a bit old technology and reactive armor was specifically developed to counter that type of attack.
Seen plenty of videos of Russian tanks popping off entirely from a side attack from a Stugna, let alone a top attack from a Javelin. I think pretty much all of Russias claims regarding their performance in the war should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I've been following operational analyses of the war pretty closely. While everyone acknowledges the great value of the new surveillance capabilities, there is an emerging consensus that the "new shiny thing" weapons haven't had nearly as much effect as anticipated. Even Ukrainian officials have been emphasizing to the West that they really need more of good old fashioned artillery rather than more gadgetry. So, articles saying "We're winning because of tech." seem to be going against the message that the leadership is now trying to put out.