Re: The actual point gets buried in a tide of anti-republican bullshit
Kursk was a pretty clever op that outlived its welcome. Zelensky does seem to have a conceptual problem with flexible defense, leaving a lot of people defending cities like Bakhmut well past their initially very favorable defender-to-attacker casualty ratios.
I think it's debateable, and also a political vs military problem. Zelensky shouldn't be directing the campaign or he'll end up like Downfall, pushing phantom units around a map and expecting Steiner to save him. Then there were the disputes between UAF commanders, so Zaluzhny vs Sirsky which affected the much hyped offensive to cut Russia's land bridge. Sirsky won that one, decided to split his forces and the counteroffensive failed at a very heavy cost in men and equipment.
Then Kursk. Again much hyped but mostly a PR stunt. The objective was probably the NPP but the offensive was pretty quickly halted. Then once it had stalled, the UAF should have withdrawn to conserve their forces, but like Bakhmut, instead kept throwing in resources. Sure, it diverted some Russian assets from other parts of the front lines, but people ignored the very important distinction between an SMO and war. While the conflict is an SMO, Russia's laws limit the forces that can be deployed. When Russian territory is attack, those limits are removed, plus it gave the DPRK an opportunity to gain combat experience, which S.Korea wasn't happy about. But Kursk was objectively a failure because it didn't gain Ukraine anything.
That all said, look at the sad reality of it all, comrade. 3.5 years into a 3 week war, the mighty Russian army, second in the world, armed to the teeth with a modern airforce and oodles of tanks is... still flailing around WW1-style trying to subdue a country with 1/3rd of its population.
The 3-week war is a meme created mostly by Gen. Milley, and it almost worked. The initial posturing was a kind of FAFO, like "Don't attack Donbas". Russia massed some forces, Zelensky decided to FAFO, Russia invaded forcing Ukraine to reposition their forces to defend Kiev. That 'full-scale' invasion was only 2-300k troops, which was nowhere near enough to capture Kiev, but it did prompt Istanbul and a fairly favorable peace deal.. Then Boris went to Kiev and persuaded Zelensky to fight to the last Ukrainian.
Then there's ignoring Russia's stated objectives for the SMO. Demilitarise & de-nazify Ukraine, not conquer it and Russia used almost the exact same justification as we used to invade Yugoslavia and destroy that country. The SMO has never been about territory, it's about eliminating Ukraine as a threat to Russia, and it's succeeding.. bizarely with Ukraine's help. So Russia's been steadily grinding forwards, and yes, using WW1-style (or Soviet) tactics. But then that's how the conflct developed. Ukraine spent the time since 2014 creating citadels and masses of trenches. Russia's bombing and shelling those and steadily advancing.
Tanks I think are interesting because of how the conflict developed and the rise of drones rendering tanks (and IFVs) less effective. They get spotted, drones arrive and destroy them.. But Russia is churning out a lot of tanks, and a lot more than we can. Question is.. Why? Russia hasn't really been using tanks in the last 6 months, so maybe it's to replace losses, maybe it's building forces to use when conditions are favorable. Much of the current fighting has been on the western front with Pokrovsk about to fall, but the Oskil river is providing a natural barrier. But if Russia can develop crossings and bridgeheads, maybe it'll bring up more armor..
But if you look at the maps, Russia is close to breaking through Ukraine's fortifications in the west.. Then things have been picking up around the southern front and Zaporizhzhia. Defences around there are mostly east-west because that was the threat axis.. not defending against a breakthrough from the west. Which is pretty much the same thing the Soviets did when they evicted the Nazis from Ukraine during WW2. Then it's a question of how much appetite Russia has, and if it wants to control everything west of the Dnipr, and capture Odessa to extend their land bridge to Transinistra. If it succeeds, Ukraine becomes a failed state and the remains get carved up. Poland gets Lviv again.
All the while waging a deliberate terror campaign against civilians.
Depends what you mean. If it's the 'Russia targeting residential buildings' meme, then it isn't, or it isn't doing that very well. Civilian casualties have been far, far lower than in our conflicts. If it's attacks on energy infrastructure, we did the same thing in Iraq and Yugoslavia with the stated intention of forcing leaders to the negotiating table. So far, Zelensky's been unwilling to negotiate seriously. But one way the conflict could end is if Ukrainians decide to end it with another coup and the removal of Zelensky and his regime.
Now, spin that up into a proper "win" for our credulous ears
The conflict isn't over yet, but Russia is objectively winning. Problem is a lot of people can't be objective, and see the realities on the ground.. Which are pretty horrific. Ukraine is entirely dependent on the west's generosity. So some butcher's bill stuff. Ukraine offered death in service benefits to their contract troops of around $350k, which is far more than we offer our soldiers. So every 100k KIA, Ukraine owes their families $35bn. Ukraine doesn't have that money, and neither do we. Or the IMF reckoned it needed $65bn for its budget. Or practicalities like if Zaporizhzhia is threatened and has to be evacuated, that'll mean maybe 700k Ukrainians displaced and have to be housed.. somewhere.
Or just the growing war fatigue in the West. The US doesn't want to pay any more, dumping the problem on the EU (and UK). We probably won't be happy having to have tax increases to fund our governments mismanagement and Ukraines. Or useful idiots like Rutte telling people that we should just cut education, health and other social spending so we can give billions in cash & weapons to Ukraine. That'll just delay the inevitable and probably result in the collapse of both Ukraine and the EU.. But then all this started with Ass.Sec Nuland saying 'fsck the EU', which she's done.
