Patricia Marins @pati_marins64
20 Feb 2026 · 1:08 PM UTC
https://nitter.net/pati_marins64/status/2024833473442181535

Replying to @imetatronink

Will, you're meticulous and not wrong, but when analyzing the capabilities of
Eastern countries, it's impossible to apply Western standards of verification
for numerous reasons. First, their defense industries neither understand nor
care about marketing. Second, when promotion does occur, it's often handled by
intelligence agencies, which can be disastrously ineffective.

I remember years ago, to access commercial data on Chinese equipment, we had to
submit a request to a department in Beijing, which would then evaluate it-
likely consulting the government-before sending the information. Something that
any Western brochure provides freely.

There are no detailed tests available for Iranian, Russian, Chinese, or North
Korean weapons. We have to take their declarations and interpret them in the
context of other weapons they have already proven capable of producing.

I would say I trust the claims of any of these "madmen" far more than, for
example, the CEO of Rheinmetall. The lies and wild speculation in the West about
ammunition production numbers in recent years have been utterly outrageous.

The Iranians have already announced a 2,600 km version for submarine-launched
anti-ship missiles, while the ballistic Khaibar is estimated to reach 3,000 km
with a 750 kg warhead. We can find mentions of this, such as in this article:
https://www.autonomyglobal.co/ai-driven-iranian-abu-mahdi-cruise-missile-expands-long-range-anti-ship-threat/

There is no documentary proof whatsoever, but neither the Zircon nor Chinese
missiles have such proof of testing. Everything has to be evaluated based on the
evolutionary level of guidance systems, engines, and fuel.