1.a) Would be OK - if Ukraine would have enough troops, and enough heavy weapons to, say, 'pocket'…

Problem: it hasn't got the heavy arms, and thus having superior number of troops doesn't matter. Thus, at most, it's keeping them busy…

1.a) Would be OK - if Ukraine would have enough troops, and enough heavy weapons to, say, 'pocket' the Russians west of Dnipro.

Problem: it hasn't got the heavy arms, and thus having superior number of troops doesn't matter. Thus, at most, it's keeping them busy there, not really surrounded or cut off.

1.b) Have heard the same, but saw no evidence, and I'm of the kind who is insisten on something like, 'photo, or it didn't happen'.

2.) Sorry but, comparing this war to the WWI, is just plain wrong. Back then, 'industrial warfare' was still a relatively new discipline, and 'generals' had no ideas how to solve the situation. 100 years later, 'generals' are supposed to know how to solve these: they only need the necessary means.

Now, in the case of the Russians, they're far too dumb and lost in their dogmas, and as corrupt as Putin, but to admit they've failed. But, in the case of Ukrainians, they simply aren't getting the necessary means.

And the rate of casualties caused by artillery is higher: more like 80-90%, perhaps up to 95% if one includes mortars.