Yeah. this is still in the "probing" and "shaping" phase, the Ukrainians are launching attacks to see which bits of the front are softest and to force the Russians to commit their reserves so that when a breakthrough happens they have fewer options to respond with.

Just today the big news was about Ukraine blowing up a vital bridge the Russians need for resupplying their lines, for example. And yesterday I was reading an interesting analysis about how the Ukrainians might actually be able to attack across the former Kakhovka reservoir now that the Russians blew up the dam and drained it. Even if they don't do that it might make sense for them to look like they're considering it so that the Russians have yet more front lines they need to reinforce.

People have been spoiled by reading history books in which they can take in a summary of a years-long war in a paragraph or two, or by Desert Storm which was rather a different sort of war than this one. This offensive could take months, and it doesn't have to have a clear "beginning" and "end" moment where one side captures a flag and declares victory over the other.

Now, watch this drive

It's also a factor of Russia not competently executing the initial invasion and got themselves bogged down. Similar to the Germans in WW1 on the western front, they got bogged down before they could take their key objectives, but the eastern front remained mostly mobile during the war because of the vast size of the front, and they eventually won on that front. Because you either win by our maneuvering your enemy an encircling them, or attriting the hell out of them till they have nothing left, and I think the pendulum has swung again towards a defensive advantage, especially with UAVs and remote mine laying systems, and precision artillery munitions.

It's a big part of why US doctrine is so focused on quick fast and overwhelming assaults and a strike first mentality. Even in Desert Storm they were severely worried about being bogged down by the Iraqi Army and starting a prolonged conflict with massive American losses. So it was imperative to flank the Iraqi Army from the western desert by the French Armored Corps.

Russia did a shit tonne of work putting in mines, trenches, and structures everywhere. They might not fight for shit, but they can dig holes and place dragon teeth. Doesn’t really require much advanced thought or tech.

That may have been the case in meme-circles, but anyone looking at the war objectively knew it was going to be slower. The Kharkiv counteroffensive only was so brutally effective, because the russian defensive lines were so weak and they didn't have any secodary defensive lines to fall back on. Meaning that once the defense was breached, Ukrainian Humvees could just keep driving and pursiung fleeing russians.

Kherson had a better defense setup, but with the bridges over the Dnipro cut, russia couldn't supply them.

Now, russia had time to create layered defensives and their logistics are harder to cut. The push towards the south is the most difficult offensive Ukraine has undertaken so far, so it's only logical for it to take the longest.

There is also a difference in tactics: While russia employs zerg rushes of convicts and mobilized into fortified Ukrainian positions, Ukraine tries to achieve local supperiorities of firepower and taking russian positions into pockets. That lowers your own casualties, but makes offensive operations more difficult.

I think the expectation was for the counter offense to be fast and severe.

Only if you've been chugging western propaganda. It was pretty clear beforehand, and has been very clear since it "started".

Offense has been losing to defensive technology since after WW2 the major exception being ICBMs of course.

It's understandably difficult when the Ukrainians fail to make gains, but it's Russian incompetence when they do it?