>>512938785
>just because drones are the new thing doesn't mean you should give up artillery.
Never said that you should. Nice reading comprehension.
>>512938792
>Ukrainians don't do such attacks
True, they fucked up their offensive trying to break through entrenched Russian positions.
They then stopped doing that, the losses speak for themselves.
Russia continued doing that.
>The Ukrainian military is not corrupt and everything is used optimally in contrast to the Russian military
The Ukrainian military is clearly much better suited to maximize its potential.
There is much more autonomy, translating into faster response time in the field.
Throwing away thousands of APC's and tanks for years until you literally deplete your stocks does not spell agility in command structure.
> 2-1 or your generous 3-1 advantage still results in much fewer Ukrainian casualties (even though artillery accounts for the vast majority of casualties, not FPV drones killing 1-3 people on camera)
This is fair, but it also goes the other way. You can claim to have killed 200 troops by bombing an entrenched position, but how can you know?
Leaving that as it is, Ukraine has suffered from the Russian artillery, but when the advantage ceased being overwhelming, then you can't just carpet bomb an area with shells for two days straight anymore. You receive counter barrages, forcing you to shoot and scoot, which means less artillery is available for less amount of time, which objectively means fewer enemy casualties.
So you have (almost) parity in artillery, parity in the air, and a drone advantage that is first now turning in Russia's favor, although it will be some time yet until that becomes overwhelming, and Ukraine will also increase its own production.
And then you just need to tie in the fact that Russia is the one pushing, and the logical, objective conclusion is that they have higher losses.