With the Ukraine War about to enter its third year, NATO continues sending weapons systems and false hope to Kyiv. These systems included antiquated variants of the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank.
The fact that Ukraine, using antiquated hand-me-downs, still manages to hold off Russia, with access to state-of-the-art technology, is both truly impressive of Ukraine, and truly impressive of Russia (but for different reasons).
How can something that legally can not be called a “war” be called “war of attrition”? Does it make sense to use terminology related to wars to something that is not a war? The article specifically talks about “attritional wars”. Are you saying an “attritional war” does not need to be a war?
On the one hand, you seem to be very strict with the exact wording (taking offense at the joking use of “gulag”) , on the othet hand you seem to play it quite loose when it comes to other terms.
The fact that Ukraine, using antiquated hand-me-downs, still manages to hold off Russia, with access to state-of-the-art technology, is both truly impressive of Ukraine, and truly impressive of Russia (but for different reasons).
meanwhile in the real world https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine
War of attrition? Off to the gulag with you, clearly it’s a special military operation of attrition!
You seem severely confused. Are you ok?
How can something that legally can not be called a “war” be called “war of attrition”? Does it make sense to use terminology related to wars to something that is not a war? The article specifically talks about “attritional wars”. Are you saying an “attritional war” does not need to be a war?
On the one hand, you seem to be very strict with the exact wording (taking offense at the joking use of “gulag”) , on the othet hand you seem to play it quite loose when it comes to other terms.