Which begs the question; why did NATO encourage this undermanned, undersupplied carnage, and worse, why do they continue to urge troops forward given this disparity?
That is an excellent question, and just like the border problem is one of politics not capability, so it is in Ukraine
Since the beginning of the invasion I have wondered why the west was so hesitant to provide the needed aid to defeat the Russians and force them back to their borders
We had the weapon systems they needed, but we gave them just enough to stem the Russian advances, but not drive them back.
Would imagine the successes of Kharkiv and Kherson were as much of a surprise to them as the Russians.
Some might be attributed to the “nuclear red line”, but I think that has pretty much been dispelled. I will say that a cornered Putin might go nuclear, just as hitler would have if had the capability, but the alternative is to say to all nuclear powers NK, Iran, China, Pakistan, India…..nuclear deterrence has turned into do whatever you want…
Giving weapons like cluster and atacms, and still lack of western aircraft, after the offensive was basically spent and the tactical and operational effect they could have had at the beginning wasted shows again how militaries win wars, politicians lose wars.
If I had to come up with something I would say most in the west even after Russian setbacks and Ukrainian successes, still thought that Russia would prevail, that the best scenario was to degrade Russian military, but not so much that Putin goes nuclear.
This half in half out approach has doomed many Ukrainians and Russians to death and disability
Good question
Why do generals fight the last war, till they are forced to fight the new one
Some may be arrogance, some may be more diabolical and thinking Ukraine can’t win so will give enough to degrade Russians, mostly politics and inability to make hard decisions.