[OutsiderFan]

Today's NYT front page story on the nearly complete stagnation of the front lines is disheartening.  The maps that visually show the lack of progress puts things in perspective. 

Since January 1, Russia has actually gained twice as much ground as Ukraine has.  But the amount of ground that either side has gained is less than the city limits of Kiev--a tiny amount.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023...-line.html

I guess I thought that the Ukrainian offensive had made some difficult progress, but it is barely a blip on the map and balanced by similar gains by Russia on other parts of the line.

Several of you with military backgrounds will no doubt have much keener insights than I have.  But my instincts to view this war as WWI-like just seem to be strengthened by stories like this.  Will this war continue, with minimal shifts in the lines, until attrition gets so bad that someone has to give up?  That the end will come not because one side seizes key territory or "breaks through" but instead will come when one side concludes that the casualties are just not worth continuing?

Count me as a skeptic that new weapons systems (air power, atacms, etc.) or better training will arrive in time to fundamentally change this highly static situation.  Hopefully one of you can dispel my pessimism and give me some reason to be hopeful.

A balloon stays intact until it bursts.  And when it bursts, it's not a slow leak, everything is let out at once. You can watch that balloon slowly take in air and think isn't ever gonna burst, just like you can see what looks like a stalemate in a war. A better analogy might be RISK. You can have your armies concentrated where you expect to be attacked and hold ground, but if there is a breakthrough, you lose it really fast because the territory is lightly defended.

It looks to me like there is about to be a real Ukrainian breakthrough in the Tokmak direction based on the information I've seen. Who cares what territory has or hasn't been re-taken by today, if there is a big breakthrough tomorrow?

It seems like Ukraine has finally bought into U.S. military suggestions which is to concentrate forces in one place, and the road to Tokmak appears to be where that is. Russia seems to know this too, but Ukraine is doing a good job of disrupting Russian supplies and logistics that I don't see Russia doing on Ukraine. Maybe they are, I'm just not seeing it.

The point is, using territorial gains as a measure to assess who is better positioned to prevail, is only sometimes the best measure to use. There are many other contexts to consider.

[OutsiderFan]

Today's NYT front page story on the nearly complete stagnation of the front lines is disheartening.  The maps that visually show the lack of progress puts things in perspective. 

Since January 1, Russia has actually gained twice as much ground as Ukraine has.  But the amount of ground that either side has gained is less than the city limits of Kiev--a tiny amount.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023...-line.html

I guess I thought that the Ukrainian offensive had made some difficult progress, but it is barely a blip on the map and balanced by similar gains by Russia on other parts of the line.

Several of you with military backgrounds will no doubt have much keener insights than I have.  But my instincts to view this war as WWI-like just seem to be strengthened by stories like this.  Will this war continue, with minimal shifts in the lines, until attrition gets so bad that someone has to give up?  That the end will come not because one side seizes key territory or "breaks through" but instead will come when one side concludes that the casualties are just not worth continuing?

Count me as a skeptic that new weapons systems (air power, atacms, etc.) or better training will arrive in time to fundamentally change this highly static situation.  Hopefully one of you can dispel my pessimism and give me some reason to be hopeful.

A balloon stays intact until it bursts.  And when it bursts, it's not a slow leak, everything is let out at once. You can watch that balloon slowly take in air and think isn't ever gonna burst, just like you can see what looks like a stalemate in a war. A better analogy might be RISK. You can have your armies concentrated where you expect to be attacked and hold ground, but if there is a breakthrough, you lose it really fast because the territory is lightly defended.

It looks to me like there is about to be a real Ukrainian breakthrough in the Tokmak direction based on the information I've seen. Who cares what territory has or hasn't been re-taken by today, if there is a big breakthrough tomorrow?

It seems like Ukraine has finally bought into U.S. military suggestions which is to concentrate forces in one place, and the road to Tokmak appears to be where that is. Russia seems to know this too, but Ukraine is doing a good job of disrupting Russian supplies and logistics that I don't see Russia doing on Ukraine. Maybe they are, I'm just not seeing it.

The point is, using territorial gains as a measure to assess who is better positioned to prevail, is only sometimes the best measure to use. There are many other contexts to consider.