Yes, manoeuvre warfare is more sexy and the subject of much more learned discussion and analysis. Indeed until recently I had considered attrition warfare a lesser form of warfare (probably influenced by Sun Tzu and my particular interest in Israel's wars).
Unfortunately the way things are heading, the Ukraine War is not going to stay confined to Ukraine and Russia. Indeed with so many non-Ukrainian fighting for Ukraine and so many NATO weapons flowing to Ukraine it is arguably already a Russia v NATO war. Russia certainly considers this to be the case.
In latest headlines I see Finland talking about sending tanks to Ukraine. Are they complete idiots!? Every tank they send to Ukraine is one less they have to defend Finland with. They only have 200 to start with. Russia could start another front by invading Finland.
Manoeuvre is definitely "sexier" than attrition, but it gets more attention because it is more economical in time and treasure than attrition. Whether its the American Revolution in 1776 or the Israeli War for Independence in 1948, manoeuvre was the strategy of choice of underdogs since they lack the resources of the acknowledged world power of the time. The greatest maxim of Sun Tzu can be restated as "The cheapest war to fight is the one never started." (Yoda said something similar, too.)
Had Russia wanted to reclaim any of the former republics of the USSR, it could have done so at any time since 2000-- especially the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Today they are members of NATO who border Russia, but even before they were these 3 countries were left alone. Same goes for pieces of Georgia. Ukraine is where the red line has been drawn, and it's been there for decades.
I remember when (H.W.) Bush promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move another inch closer to the USSR if it permitted the reunification of Germany. Bush had kept that promise. Clinton broke it when he had his dealing with Yeltsin, and both Bush (no-H W) and Obama continued that trend. I can't say if the trend stopped with Trump, but I don't recall any movement then.
Biden is POTUS, and we are where we are. It's almost as if he has a death wish with all he has said about both Russia and Ukraine. He could also be blinded by greed given his connections to Ukraine going back at least to his terms as vice-president.
Even if Russia enjoys being a "gangster country," it's more interested in money than in control of land. It can get what it wants through trade and commerce even if it acts like a bully. Ruling an empire as was done before 1914 isn't as fun as it used to be.
Finland may be foolish in sending tanks to Ukraine when they are needed more to defend Finland. More foolish is the US sending equipment and personnel when quantities of both dwindling. This makes his lack of foresight regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan even more painful: If he insists on sending resources to Ukraine, he could have rerouted the hardware left behind in Afghanistan. Thanks to his lack of foresight (or that of his advisors), he lost that option. The best I can say about him is that he knows how to protect his 1967 Corvette.
Yes, I think Biden is so senile he though he was swearing to defend and protect The Corvette rather than The Constitution!
LOL, that's very likely, too!
His day will come, that I can tell you. The question is, will be be too late for us by then?