I doubt 6.8 happens. The projects to replace 5.56 look like they are intended so some government contractors make buck more than anything else.

Much of the claim that 5.56 is inadequate for the ranges in Afghanistan is based on being outranged by insurgents armed with PKMs. Bipod mounted machine guns firing full powered cartridges. The M16 family outrange AK47s and AK74s and other Russian assault rifles, although the base M4 is dated at this point. The problem we had with our equipment is more that the PKM fills a roll that our M240s are too heavy for and M249 has less range. A US PKM copy or an updated light weight M60 would be the better solution.

I don’t believe 6.8 mm SPC improves on 5.56 with respect to performance against body armor. In fact that’s an area where 5.56 does well due to higher velocity. 6.8 is pretty much designed to improve on lethality, particularly when dealing with certain barriers but not body armor or greater range. The marginal improvements it offers doesn’t justify it. Except for elite units in specific situations, maybe.

IIRC and from online media the DOD is working to replace some parts of the small arms 5.56 and 7.62 menagerie with a 6.8 mm based cartridge system (at least three different designs for the 6.8 mm cartridge system). Anyway the drivers appear to be deficiencies of the 5.56 regarding range, lethality, and performance against modern body armor used by peers or near peers.

The wild card here is the bullet used, which has a significant impact, and I think the 7.62 NATO has the most potential. But in practice it isn’t given that it is best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=547BKysByqM

(Tree penetration test comparing 5.45mm, 5.56mm, 7.62x39mm, and 7.62 NATO)

Even mech infantry are going to be limited in how much ammo is carried, read House to House, David Bellavia had almost no full mags left when he cleared a house by himself that contained 6 insurgents in Fallujah. They were Bradly dismounts but short on ammo at that point.

I read them both.
I then accessed a few more articles from both.
(1) Consortium News is citing reports from Russian media sources contradicting the Ukrainian sources. I don’t see that as an advance.
They are also reprinting articles about Ukraine from Max Blumenthal.
Do a few look-ups on him; I do not consider him a trustworthy source because of his history.
(2) Are we now considering MSN & Newsweek to be credible unbiased sources?

Conclusion: Fog of war, competing stories with no trusted arbiter, and the bias of all sources make it hard from this distance to decide who to believe. Particularly since any given story or source can be mixing (A) objectively true statements (even if we can’t verify them ourselves) with (B) possibly true statements (no one really knows) with (C) false claims.

I do NOT accept “leaked stories from the Pentagon” as anything other than (B) because of their history of promoting what are now known to be (C).

“Never said or even implied that Vlad is a good guy. Just that he’s not the only bad guy leading the unwitting.”

I do agree with this, but it’s very, very unclear who the other bad guys are, what they are “leading” with and why, and who (if any) are the good guys.

Repeating Frederick’s mantra: I know Russia invaded Ukraine and the Ukrainians are fighting back. To which I add, I know a lot of civilians have fled the country and a lot are dead and injured (I do find it hard to dispute some of the photos that have been published).
Beyond that lies speculation, much of it rivaling the plot lines of Game of Thrones, of which I have been posting my fair share.

Just watched bloviating Joe call for Putin to go (rather stupid thing to call for), and talk about freedom vs tyranny. But Joe represents tyranny here, which is worse than in Ukraine where it is normal. I support Ukraine in their war, but we have a huge problem. The mitigating factor is the incompetence and stupidity of those who wish to rule us.