It sounds like it was too risky to have made a counter attack at all, but also that it would be politically unfeasible to continue to attempt to attrit. It's an impossible situation that they might have actually found the best result for. Unless their casualties were unacceptably high from the failed attack?
A central question looking back will be how much pressure the Ukrainians were actually under to attack. The US seems to have pushed for attacking before Russia completed its fortifications, but it's unclear whether Ukraine would have faced backlash if it made clear to its allies that it intended to continue on the defensive while it reformed its military. Perceived inaction may have eroded support, but hardly as much as a failed offensive.
It sounds like it was too risky to have made a counter attack at all, but also that it would be politically unfeasible to continue to attempt to attrit. It's an impossible situation that they might have actually found the best result for. Unless their casualties were unacceptably high from the failed attack?
A central question looking back will be how much pressure the Ukrainians were actually under to attack. The US seems to have pushed for attacking before Russia completed its fortifications, but it's unclear whether Ukraine would have faced backlash if it made clear to its allies that it intended to continue on the defensive while it reformed its military. Perceived inaction may have eroded support, but hardly as much as a failed offensive.
That makes sense. How much is Zaluzhnyi culpable for this?