Why it’s almost as if another army had that lesson slammed in their face around Kursk. Obviously today is different than yesterday.

“Also, he managed to omit the (fairly obvious) objective. What is the point of discussing an operation without its objectives? For “failure” or “success” to even make sense, you need to compare the results with the objectives.”

Agreed. In any endeavor you need to know the goals to understand if you’ve met them, failed to meet them, or only met a part of them.

Also, he managed to omit the (fairly obvious) objective. What is the point of discussing an operation without its objectives? For “failure” or “success” to even make sense, you need to compare the results with the objectives.

And in context of the objective… it makes sense, at least as a desperate act. Because the entire point, of course, was not to start negotiations from a self-inflicted cauldron. It was: get into range, bracket the power plant, then nuclear blackmail starts, and fighting stops (assuming rather a lot, yes… see “desperate”). Once ceasefire is achieved, obvious problems of this being a salient would not matter anymore. This would be its success. Anything else naturally was its failure, whether quick or slow.

Including over 1,900 dead Polish troops, over 900 dead Lithuanian troops, some 200 dead UK troops, some 150 dead Americans…

and Russia is expanding into Sumi and Karkhov.