Zagorodnyuk attributed Zaluzhnyi's success to his ability to delegate, encourage initiative among lower ranks and obtain the feedback needed to react to opportunities. "People on the ground know the situation much better than in Kyiv. They are there. They help to build this opportunistic warfare when they see the weak spots of the enemy," he said.

A US military official praised Zaluzhnyi's ability to react swiftly to Russia's movements and failures. As an example he cited the defence of Kyiv in the early days of the war, where Russian troops overstretched their supply lines and became bogged down, only to be battered by Ukrainian units operating on their flanks. "He kept his forces agile and never allowed them to get fixed. Staying on the move is difficult and takes discipline," the official said. In the battle for Kyiv, Zaluzhnyi's decision to disperse Ukrainian air defences was crucial to preventing Russia from attaining full air superiority, the official added.

Altogether, the Biden administration received Congressional approval for $40bn in aid for Ukraine for 2022 and has requested an additional $37.7bn for 2022. More than half of this aid has been earmarked for defense.  

These sums pale into insignificance when set against a total US defense budget of $715bn for 2022. The assistance represents 5.6% of total US defense spending. But Russia is a primary adversary of the US, a top tier rival not too far behind China, its number one strategic challenger. In cold, geopolitical terms, this war provides a prime opportunity for the US to erode and degrade Russia’s conventional defense capability, with no boots on the ground and little risk to US lives.  

US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment. If we divide out the US defense budget to the threats it faces, Russia would perhaps be of the order of $100bn-150bn in spend-to-threat. So spending just $40bn a year, erodes a threat value of $100-150bn, a two-to-three time return.  

No. The solution to terrorism against civilians is not threatening or executing heavy increases of terrorism against civilians.

Yes, threatening is not a solution... in a fairytale land, especially from the comfort and safety of a warm Western sofa. Try to ask Ukrainian civilians what they think - before they freeze to death or starve.

Well bombing Russian civilians won't warm the Ukrainians either. If anything, they'll just want a fast and a reasonable end to the war, and I doubt a lot of people believe bombing Russian civilians is going to do much to help that. I know I don't. It makes about as much sense as the Russian belief that the Ukrainians will give up if you bomb them and prevent them from getting electricity - which has rarely, if ever, worked.

I understand, but the intention here is not to bomb Russian civillians but make Putin think twice! He knows that leaving Ukrainians without electricity probably won't help him much, but he does it anyway because he has almost nothing to lose. It's the same with going nuclear, he has been warned so he didn't use it - at least thus far. It's the same as before February 23 - threatened with economic sanctions was a green light in his eyes - not much to lose. Now if he is threatened with something serious he will think twice before bringing pointless devastation to Ukrainian civillians - an already poor country of 40m that had a -35% drop in GDP in 2022 WITH electricity, imagine what is at stake if Putin keeps destroying energy infrastructure...

What fairytale land? The one where logic and reason reign in debate? Or the fairytale land where international law puts civilians off limits from military threats and attacks? Because the terrorizing and attacking of even more civilians isn’t fixing the plight of civilians, it’s expanding it. And since the majority of countries made it law not to attack civilians, we’ve mitigated many would-be massacres, sexual assaults, and overall deaths of civilians. This fairytale land has worked quite well for us compared to the millions to tens of millions of civilians suffering, maimed, and killed in past conflicts.

But if you want to stick to your own convictions, then being as you’re seated on a “warm Western sofa,” you preclude yourself from this conversation.

Attacking Russian civilians apart from being a war crime and delegitimise the Ukrainians only really plays into Putin's hands, currently the Russian army is demoralised, an attack on Russian civilian infrastructure will give them a powerful reason to fight and shore up support for Putin with the pubic permanently, it would be the worst mistake to make by Ukraine, simplistic revenge isn't the answer, Russia made that mistake, learn from them    

So, are you saying that we simply threaten them but don't act on it to make Putin think twice? I.E., "If you continue to attack Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, we will send Ukraine ATACMS or other longer-range missiles to strike deeper into Russia?" - An example. I could see the logic framed like that, but it definitely shouldn't include "civilian infrastructure" in the threat.

Having said that, I don't think the threat works, Putin doesn't give a shit about his civilians or Ukraine striking into Russia, they've done it multiple times already. We should be sending Ukraine longer range missiles regardless without having to threaten Russia and as I've said already, aside from the moral objections, there is very little strategic value in targeting civilian infrastructure like Russia is doing.

Send them longer range missiles either way like ATACMS, Russia isn't going to do shit to the West, I don't know why we're still afraid, Russia isn't going to nuke Ukraine because they struck military targets with a missile deeper than Belgorod. Ukraine won't use the missiles on civilian infrastructure because they aren't Russia.

What on Earth makes you think it would make Putin think twice? He doesn't care about his people, he cares about his own position ang legacy, and a bit of civilian suffering is nothing to him. If anything, Putin would see it as a way to rally popular support for the war due to attacks on what has been Russian territory for ages. Putin responds to about two things: force, and credible threats with force. Attacks on civiliation populace are not a threat to him, unless he lets it happen.