I don't think they need to remove the government there. And international recognition of new territories doesn't really matter in any practical way. Russia also absolutely doesn't care what narrative the west is spinning as they've shown over the past two years. Neither people in Russia or any country aligned with Russia pay much attention to that.
On the other hand, a dysfunctional rump state of Ukraine would present a huge problem for the west. Either it becomes an black hole that the west has to keep pouring money into in order to prop it up, or it collapses and there's a massive refugee crisis in Europe. The economic situation in the west is already shaky with Eurozone going into a recession. Either scenario is going to make the economic situation even worse.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian nationalists are already starting to say that the west betrayed them, and there will to be just as much animosity towards the west as there is toward Russia going forward. The fascists from Ukraine have already been linking up with far right groups across Europe, and we know that around 70% of the weapons shipped to Ukraine went missing. I imagine a lot of these made their way into the hands of terrorist cells in European countries.
In fact, Naryshkin has already alluded to Ukraine becoming another Vietnam for US. So, I very much think that Russian strategy will continue to be to do attrition and to create an unsustainable economic situation for the west.
This is all so much confusing and anger-inducing. I get the headaches of strategy though, so many layers to this. Part of me thinks that Russia should go on a true offensive soon if Ukraine doesn't agree to a peace deal, but that might backfire and inspire the Amerikkkan and UkraNazi imperialists to add some money from the U.S. black budget and begin to throw more hordes of bad guys at Russia, economic stability be damned.
Exactly, it's a fine balancing act where Russia doesn't want NATO to provoke a major escalation with NATO, and they're just dragging out a war of attrition because it's working in their favor. A big offensive would also be a lot more costly, so I really think that the plan is to just slowly keep ramping up pressure until Ukrainian army starts to collapse.
Mearsheimer had a pretty good analysis of the situation in my opinion. He points out that vast majority of casualties in the war come from artillery and Russia enjoys a massive artillery advantage over Ukraine. So, attrition ratio favors Russia in a big way.
Experienced and motivated soldiers are the core that holds Ukrainian army together. And as these soldiers are lost and replaced with new conscripts who lack experience and motivation the army effectiveness keeps decreasing. Eventually it will hit an inflection point where it's simply not capable of holding the line.
I don't think they need to remove the government there. And international recognition of new territories doesn't really matter in any practical way. Russia also absolutely doesn't care what narrative the west is spinning as they've shown over the past two years. Neither people in Russia or any country aligned with Russia pay much attention to that.
On the other hand, a dysfunctional rump state of Ukraine would present a huge problem for the west. Either it becomes an black hole that the west has to keep pouring money into in order to prop it up, or it collapses and there's a massive refugee crisis in Europe. The economic situation in the west is already shaky with Eurozone going into a recession. Either scenario is going to make the economic situation even worse.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian nationalists are already starting to say that the west betrayed them, and there will to be just as much animosity towards the west as there is toward Russia going forward. The fascists from Ukraine have already been linking up with far right groups across Europe, and we know that around 70% of the weapons shipped to Ukraine went missing. I imagine a lot of these made their way into the hands of terrorist cells in European countries.
In fact, Naryshkin has already alluded to Ukraine becoming another Vietnam for US. So, I very much think that Russian strategy will continue to be to do attrition and to create an unsustainable economic situation for the west.
This is all so much confusing and anger-inducing. I get the headaches of strategy though, so many layers to this. Part of me thinks that Russia should go on a true offensive soon if Ukraine doesn't agree to a peace deal, but that might backfire and inspire the Amerikkkan and UkraNazi imperialists to add some money from the U.S. black budget and begin to throw more hordes of bad guys at Russia, economic stability be damned.
Exactly, it's a fine balancing act where Russia doesn't want NATO to provoke a major escalation with NATO, and they're just dragging out a war of attrition because it's working in their favor. A big offensive would also be a lot more costly, so I really think that the plan is to just slowly keep ramping up pressure until Ukrainian army starts to collapse.
Mearsheimer had a pretty good analysis of the situation in my opinion. He points out that vast majority of casualties in the war come from artillery and Russia enjoys a massive artillery advantage over Ukraine. So, attrition ratio favors Russia in a big way.
Experienced and motivated soldiers are the core that holds Ukrainian army together. And as these soldiers are lost and replaced with new conscripts who lack experience and motivation the army effectiveness keeps decreasing. Eventually it will hit an inflection point where it's simply not capable of holding the line.