The answer is that the west hasn't been on the "defending" side of this situation in modern memory, and so cannot ideate the stalemate as a victory, notwithstanding the tactical/strategic rationalisations of what this is "costing" Putin and his allies.

Militarily, Its lost impetus. Blyatzkreig indeed. It's as if the sweep to the west in 39/40 stalled in the Ardennes and never reached paris. It's as if the sweep to the east in 41 stalled 50km outside of Polish borders. There is no evidence that can hide from sats, to backfill the supply chain logistics for a massive breakout and change. All they have (the Russians) is to destroy, salt the earth, and declare done with Carthage, but in reality, it won't work either.

Claiming victory early presumes the wests views of acceptable loss and attrition hold. I am less sure this is true, and doesn't take account of the suggestions of both Chechen and Syrian mercenaries (if we can call them that) doing this work.

The bombing campaign of WWII cost significantly more in losses of men than the west would tolerate now, but it did carry on then. I think to declare this "too much" is to misunderstand what Russian forces might do, given their structure. Its not a western army. Why do we believe armchair critics saying its unsustainable? I don't know what is or is not sustainable, I do know Persians who told me the Iran-Iraq war would never have stopped simply because of bodycount. It lasted 8 years.

I think it is a victory of sorts, especially if the bodycount (or non-bodycount, given we're told they took battlefield crematoria with them) mounts. Putin cannot sustain peace-keeping mission, against this situation. No UN intervention has sustained this level of loss. Its a paper thin fiction.

I personally struggle to consider 4m refugees, and the potential for a continuing stalingrad war in the rubble as victory. Militarily, I agree this is not a sustainable occupation. There is no victory for Russia, in holding a wasteland against its residents wishes. No puppet government will exist to shore up defence of the motherland, for long.

Its stupid. If politicians cannot learn how to say "I made a mistake" we're all doomed. But I don't think Putin has been drawn to admit a mistake in a long time.

I am sure many defence technology specialists are delighted with what NLAW and UAV have achieved. This is our generations "machine guns change horse charges" moment maybe. I would worry this lesson will be learned both ways: NATO posture to defend against Russian aggression now has to work out how to defend against NLAW and UAV.

The hollowness of the Russian armed forces, the manifest corruption behind their materiel, I mean things as basic as chinese import tires which weren't rotated and the sidewalls gave out, the rank conditions of the MRE, the lack of structural defence against weapons on the tanks, the fitout of the tanks, the quality of the troops personal weaponry and uniforms.. Thats totally unexpected. I freely admit to having believed the Russian army was in better shape.

Hypersonic weapons are cool, but you need professional soldiers. They have a lot less of them, than I thought.

I'm not, and never have been a soldier. I am in awe of what people in Ukraine are willing to endure, to oppose the aggressor.