Bruh
“Mmmm flouncy turkey for dinner.”
So…
Long supply chains and no in-house skills 
inflexible, poorly adaptive, readily exploited by the enemy.
Short supply chains and sharp in-house skill sets flexible, tactically effective, hard to exploit.
Such a 
obvious lesson that applies to so many tools and business practices… 
I admit I am a little skeptical, mainly because the vehicles all show no signs of battle damage. My gut instinct is that these were vehicles that were purchased.
My other thought it that this was inevitable, since after being humiliated by the large number of destroyed Russian vehicles being loaned out to European cities Putin’s PR boys needed to find some way to show off. Maybe it’s supposed to humiliate the “West”, I suppose, but I don’t think like a Russian, I’m told.
There is more here, there are vehicles showing damage (of course not verified where or when they were damaged).
It seems to be working for the few vox pops (of course they could be stooges).
From where? Who is going to sell Leopards or Abrams to Russia?
Lots of shady sources. Think of all the tanks that have been relegated to storage, and the honesty of quartermasters. The Bundeswehr decommissioned the majority of their armor inventory after Reunification and are drawing from those reserves.
But I reiterate that it’s a gut feeling, may own bias showing. It says more of how easy it is to dismiss Russian claims than whether it really is true.
Generally, it’s prudent to be extremely skeptical of any Russian claims, even to the point of automatically dismissing them as lies until and unless verified by other, reliable sources.
If it was fake don’t you think Ukraine media wouldn’t be all over it?
You can find vehicles here
The Husky, for example, is the 2nd captured one (judging by the image)
# US issues hundreds of sanctions targeting Russia, takes aim at Chinese companies
Reuters links aren’t oneboxing for some reason
Reuters articles never onebox. Their website doesn’t support it.
