How can something that legally can not be called a "war" be called "war of attrition"? Does it make sense to use terminology related to wars to something that is not a war? The article specifically talks about "attritional wars". Are you saying an "attritional war" does not need to be a war?

On the one hand, you seem to be very strict with the exact wording (taking offense at the joking use of "gulag") , on the othet hand you seem to play it quite loose when it comes to other terms.