Comments by "Andy Monaghan" (@229andymon) on "The Total FAILURE of Ukraine's Offensive Results in HEAVY Losses" video.

This is looking more and more like a high tech WW1.
101
@korana6308 long lines of carefully prepared trench works, dominance of artillery, “meat grinder” operations, offensives followed by counter offensives followed by offensives, small territorial gains…………… WW2 was more of a blitzkrieg style of combined arms leading to rapid movements and territorial gains.
18
@korana6308 I agree, which is why I said “more like” WW1. But, it can’t be denied that the general conduct of WW2 followed a different course than WW1, with blitzkreig featuring much more in 2 and trench warfare in 1. To me, this conflict fits 1 more than 2 - so far at least.
7
@korana6308 Actually I’m being historically negligent, or exhibiting a Western bias perhaps. Because of course my last comment doesn’t fit what happened in the Eastern Front in WW1, which was more like a huge push west by the Russian forces, followed by a huge retreat back east. My bad….
3
@korana6308 Yes, good point about the transport revolution between the 2. I hadn’t quite considered how much that was a factor. Having said that, it’s surprising how much of Barbarossa relied on rail and horsepower. May I ask where you see this ending (assuming not in WW3)? For me, the UKRs hardening commitment to joining NATO afterward will be driving Russia into a corner where they need to either conquer/occupy all of UKR, which I consider unlikely, or rather use this (last) opportunity to ensure 1. the biggest buffer between Moscow and the NATO border, and 2. an emasculated, shrunken UKR. I started by thinking the Donbas would suffice for them, but now I reckon they will want up to the Dniepr. Perhaps Odessa too, not sure. This of course assuming they can get what they want. Your thoughts?
1