Just to underline what this comment is saying: this type of breakthrough was the wet dream of WW1. The race to the sea, where the western front was established, was based on finding a flank and turning it. That was the objective of most warfare up to that point, and it ended because they ran out of ground on which to turn a flank. Then they couldn’t meaningfully break through the defenses (or layers of, to be more accurate), like we see Ukraine doing in Kursk. If they turn the flank, they’ll have routing russians for days, and have achieved maneuver warfare again.

I agree and disagree, I guess. It’s sad that so much money is invested in the military industrial complex, but since those weapons are used to fight an opressive and dictatorial regime in favor of democracy, I guess its better. Both Sun Tzu and Clausewitz refer to the use of an army as the continuation of the political process, and democratization of Ukraine is to many a worthy goal, as opposed to the growth of the Russian sphere of influence. Opposing Russia now might lead to a lower overall negative impact than if the same figth is had after Ukraine is annexed and Poland is next in line, but that’s just a hypothetical.