The Dangerous Obsession with Territory in a War of Attrition

In a war of attrition, the objective is to exhaust the adversary. Large territorial conquests come afterwards as well-defended defensive lines are costly to break in terms of manpower and equipment.

The journalists who have reported on a stagnant conflict and celebrated whenever Ukraine goes on the offensive (and often enters into artillery pockets) are obsessed with territory.

After exhausting the Ukrainian military and NATO weaponry, Russia opened another front in Kharkov to further stretch the depleted Ukrainian army. Ukraine's Kursk offensive is a risky move because it predictably comes at an extremely high price as men and machines are destroyed in the open and without reliable supply lines, and the territory cannot be held. The deeper Ukraine penetrates into Russian territory, the weaker its supply lines become. These troops could instead have been used to defend crumbling frontlines in Donbas.

The value of territory must be assessed primarily by impact on logistics and the positions for favourable attrition rates. Thus territorial conquests that result in less favourable attrition rates is not a measurement of success. The Ukrainian & NATO invasion of Kursk lacks strategic purpose - why are so many men and so much military equipment traded away for vulnareble territory?

It is nearly impossible to make this argument in the West as the journalists and the public have been trained to clap as seals every time Ukraine conquers territory. This is mandatory to display loyalty and proof of being "pro-Ukrainian". Dissent is immediately denounced as "Russian propaganda" and punished with high social costs.

Zelensky has wasted many troops on PR battles, yet it is not entirely his fault as the PR stunts are necessary to acquire attention and more weapons from the West as our politicians and public get excited every time Ukraine acquires some territory.

The assumption is that Russia will be demoralised and make great concessions if it loses some territory. But Russia considers NATO expansion to be an existential threat and can therefore not stand down before Ukrainian neutrality is restored. As NATO rejects any negotiations on NATO expansion, the only path for Russia to achieve its objective is attrition warfare. Yes, this war is also a territorial conflict now, although that is a symptom of the failure of a diplomatic path to end NATO expansionism. This should all be obvious, but it is not permitted to state the obvious anymore as it is criminalised as "legitimising" the Russian invasion.

If we survive this proxy war with Russia (not a certainty as we keep escalating against the world's largest nuclear power), we should reflect on how our sloganeering, war propaganda and censorship have crippled our ability to conduct rational analysis required to maximise security.

The attrition war has already entered a new stage as the Ukrainian army has been exhausted and the frontlines are collapsing without much resistance. The foolish Ukrainian/NATO invasion of Kursk worsened the situation further as important logistics centres are no longer sufficiently defended. Below is the most important frontline, where the Russians are approaching the very strategic transportation hub of Pokrovsk - without meeting much resistance.