The Russians don’t need to make decisive offensives because those are very costly as Ukraine discovered last summer. What the Russians are doing is a slow push of attrition all across the front using their superior artillery and air force power. Ukraine and the west are very clearly not able to keep up with that. Now we’re already starting to see the signs of the Ukrainian army breaking under pressure with the loss of Avdevka being a prime example of that.
Not really though? You’re not taking several other factors outside the actual battlefield in consideration with that arguing. Important things to consider if you’re aiming for grinding your opponent down is for how long you can keep up. Both economically and with your citizens. Now Russia has the benefit of not needing to adhere to its populations will to the same extent as Ukraine but there will be a point where the economic suffering of the Russians will reach a point where they demand change, just like in 1917.
And the ukrainans has shown time and again how they manage to beat the Russians without having the same numbers of tanks and guns. I mean just look at Ukraines fleet, they have none but are still winning the war to sea? What they consider the main hindrance for actually succeeding with their offensives is the lack of air support, so even if those F-16’s never get delivered the Russians can’t make decisive victories and are left with hoping for a frozen conflict, and that is not winning a war.
Now imagine if the west actually starts to deliver the arms Ukraine begs for. That will be the end of Russia’s occupation.
If you bother reading the article I linked in this very thread, it answers all those questions for you. The Ukrainians also have not shown anything of the sort. They’ve literally lost every engagement so far.
The one about Russia making more arms or seizing control over the city? None of them refute my points, so maybe you could do it instead?
