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.
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.
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.