This one sentence from the analysis sums it up:
Overall, the gist of his final prescriptive analysis is that: “we need our army to be a completely different, new army in order to defeat Russia.”
In addition there are a number of interesting admissions made by Ukraine's top commander such as that time is on Russia's side.
He also fantasizes about weapons systems which do not yet exist and scifi technology such as tunnel boring plasma bots turning the tide.
As the author of this analysis puts it: The vast majority of his proposal is wishful thinking.
IIRC Zaluzhny was more realistic, assessing things like a soldier; recently he speaks more and more like a politician - I mean "how to win..." is impossible, basically an outright lie.
"Realistic" is a relative term when you're talking about the people in the Kiev regime. You don't get to (and stay in) the position that he is in without being at least somewhat delusional and/or willing to lie to yourself and others about reality. He's also very likely a Nazi.
A realistic person would never find themselves in his situation, or would seek to gtfo asap. There have already been a number of rats that have fled that sinking ship, if he was realistic he would do so too. But yeah, in the Kiev regime he probably qualifies as the "voice of reason".
Of course, it's all relative both to his earlier words and to Zelensky's (yeah I know, extremely low bar). The actual realism, and best option BY FAR for the people of Ukraine, would be an immediate surrender - but the government that represents the people would never reach this situation in the first place.
You kinda have to though, Americans don't want an honest assessment of realistic options that are bad, they won't throw more resources at you if a stalemate is all they're going to get from it. Beg steal or borrow they need whatever they can get to keep the lights on.
The Americans are getting destroyed Russian equipment and dead russian soldiers for the cost of old military hardware and a small fraction of their military budget. A stalemate is an acceptable situation fror them.
yeah, i often ponder why countries accept being the patsy in proxy wars like this with the US. Have we ever not abandoned said countries before their goals are met? It can't be that the leaders are too stupid to realize the US will do it to them, right? it has to be that they are corrupt and profiting as well... Right? Is there data on this? has to be, right?