Well, you have your views, with plenty of facts to support them, and I can see that you are unlikely to change those views.
However, this attrition strategy is the one that was chosen given all of the political, diplomatic, supply, military constraints that the decision makers were dealing with at the time.
Well, you have your views, with plenty of facts to support them, and I can see that you are unlikely to change those views.
However, this attrition strategy is the one that was chosen given all of the political, diplomatic, supply, military constraints that the decision makers were dealing with at the time.
You choose to second guess that based on your information and how things have played out.
It's like 3rd and goal, and the quarterback runs the ball and gets thrown for 10 yards.
How many people in the stands are saying, "He should have passed!", "He should have handed it off to the running back!"
Everybody second guesses - and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Of course, everyone second guesses, when it is obvious that the strategy isn't working. It's another to insist that fourth and long is a desirable outcome and all part of a great big plan.
So you think the attrition strategy is not working.
OK.
Let's have a look.
Have a very large number of Ukrainian soldiers been removed from the battlefield?
Yes.
Does the number of Ukrainian soldiers that have been removed from the battlefield greatly exceed, by a factor of 5x to 9x, the Russian losses?
Allegedly yes.
Have a very large number of items of Ukrainian materiel been destroyed/removed from use?
Allegedly yes.
Does the number of items of Ukrainian materiel losses greatly exceed the materiel losses of the Russians?
Apparently yes.
Have the Russians begun destroying, at will with almost no opposition, Ukraine's electric/water/sewage infrastructure to any great extent?
Apparently yes.
Have the Russians been destroying the Ukrainian Army's ability to effectively carry out the war?
I vote yes.
Has this attrition strategy also had the unforeseen effect [due to moronic policies of stripping national military inventories] of significantly demilitarizing NATO, the EU countries, the UK and to some limited extent even the USA, thereby reducing their conventional military capabilities against Russia?
So it seems.
Based on the above considerations, I would have to determine that, far from not working, the strategy is a roaring success.
Well, you have your views, with plenty of facts to support them, and I can see that you are unlikely to change those views.
However, this attrition strategy is the one that was chosen given all of the political, diplomatic, supply, military constraints that the decision makers were dealing with at the time.
You choose to second guess that based on your information and how things have played out.
It's like 3rd and goal, and the quarterback runs the ball and gets thrown for 10 yards.
How many people in the stands are saying, "He should have passed!", "He should have handed it off to the running back!"
Everybody second guesses - and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Of course, everyone second guesses, when it is obvious that the strategy isn't working. It's another to insist that fourth and long is a desirable outcome and all part of a great big plan.
So you think the attrition strategy is not working.
OK.
Let's have a look.
Have a very large number of Ukrainian soldiers been removed from the battlefield?
Yes.
Does the number of Ukrainian soldiers that have been removed from the battlefield greatly exceed, by a factor of 5x to 9x, the Russian losses?
Allegedly yes.
Have a very large number of items of Ukrainian materiel been destroyed/removed from use?
Allegedly yes.
Does the number of items of Ukrainian materiel losses greatly exceed the materiel losses of the Russians?
Apparently yes.
Have the Russians begun destroying, at will with almost no opposition, Ukraine's electric/water/sewage infrastructure to any great extent?
Apparently yes.
Have the Russians been destroying the Ukrainian Army's ability to effectively carry out the war?
I vote yes.
Has this attrition strategy also had the unforeseen effect [due to moronic policies of stripping national military inventories] of significantly demilitarizing NATO, the EU countries, the UK and to some limited extent even the USA, thereby reducing their conventional military capabilities against Russia?
So it seems.
Based on the above considerations, I would have to determine that, far from not working, the strategy is a roaring success.
Even taking all that as true, the price is obvious worth it to Bankovskaya and its American masters.
Otherwise they would not press on their attacks in spite of the losses.