I recommend reading this piece at Modern War Institute by Marnix Provoost on the Russian “theory of victory” in the war in Ukraine. Here’s the kernel of the piece:
From the Russian perspective, the Ukraine invasion is a necessary offensive move within a strategic defensive posture. A prosperous, Western-oriented Ukraine that is a member of the EU may offer the Russian population a dangerous glimpse of an alternative political system and thereby fuel dissatisfaction with Russia’s political and economic system. Furthermore, Ukrainian entry into NATO and the EU would lead to a political-strategic loss of face for the Russian regime at home and abroad and therefore represents a military-strategic vulnerability for Russia’s defense.
Initially, the Russian regime may have regarded its invasion of Ukraine as a “regional conflict†with “important†military-political goals, and its classification as a “special military operation†may have been genuine. Indeed, it seems that the Kremlin’s ambitious political objective was to install a new, pro-Russian government in Kyiv by lightning action. Bold, deep maneuvers along multiple axes of attack and the rapid elimination of the Ukrainian government in Kyiv should have led to the collapse of Ukrainian resistance and prevented Russia from indirectly opposing the economically and technologically superior West in a protracted proxy war.
After this failed, Russia seems to have adjusted its political objectives and strategy. The Russian armed forces currently have neither the troop numbers nor the capacity to subdue and pacify all of Ukraine. As contradictory as it may sound, however, the special military operation therefore does seem likely to escalate into a “large-scale war†with “radical†military-political objectives.
He concludes with a good question: what’s the U. S. theory of victory? To my eye it’s “whatever the Ukrainians say it is” which at this point is similarly beyond the capacity of Ukraine.
I have a question on the quoted passage : “A prosperous, Western-oriented Ukraine that is a member of the EU may offer the Russian population a dangerous glimpse of an alternative political system ”
Given the US / EU has had 30 years to make Ukraine prosper; yet Ukraine ended up with a GDP per. capita that is half of Russia’s and the poorest in Europe — does Moscow really fear Ukraine would become prosperous?
I somewhat agree with — “a dangerous glimpse of an alternative political system”. Moscow does believe the West wants to impose regime change via “color revolution” on Russia, and that this is dangerous to Russia. And here there is concrete evidence, “Navalny returning to Russia on an airplane from Germany”, and the coup in Ukraine.
My conclusion is the author would be a lot more persuasive if the West’s deeds matched its ideals or words.
Russia has between 500,000 and 600,000 troops who are sitting out this war waiting for NATO’s intervention. Russia, for now, is content to let Wagner and the Donbas militias grind done the Ukrainian army. So far the have killed over 200,000 Ukrainian troops and crippled around 300,000.
Russia is going to win this war outright, and impose the conditions of the peace settlement.
US/NATO has been revealed to be an empty shell.
Blinken and the other neocons who rule the US are agitating now for a war with China. The TikTok nonsense, like the Huawei nonsense, is agitprop psyops to condition the American people for a US military attack on China. The evil in Washington knows no limits.
Dave, you keep citing the monsters who are destroying this country, and the future of your own family. Please reconsider.
Maria Barti-whatever, The Money Honey, today on Fox business let loose an appalling anti-Chinese rant. The whole of the Washington establishment is committed to world war. Our problem, you and me, Dave, is how to stop them.
CO- When has Ukraine been allowed to interact freely with the rest fo the world. The day after Ukraine initiated changing from working with Russian systems for power the Russians started the war. Seems like a pretty clear message to me. Also, reading more about the “coup” in Ukraine I am less impressed about the coup claim. It was again Russian influence trying to stop changes that the majority of the country wanted and probably illegally.
Steve
IMO, Russian history provides clear answers. Russian control of Crimea and Sevastopol has been a vital strategic interest of Russia for centuries.
The Russian fear, therefore, isn’t an “alternative political system” but losing strategic control of vital territory that Russia has fought multiple wars over in the past. The Russian view is that the lease on Sevastopol negotiated after the demise of the USSR was only good as long as Ukraine was a country that was friendly to Russia and in its orbit. That changed in 2014. Whatever one may think, Russia saw that as an attempt by the west (and the US) to bring about the stated US policy of bringing Ukraine into NATO. A Crimea (and the whole Black Sea) controlled by a hostile military alliance is the actual fear.
The other strategic goal for Russia, IMO, is control of the Donbas and the maintenance of a land bridge to Crimea. The land bridge should be obvious – for Donbas, it’s got a majority Russian-aligned population and was a critical industrial heartland.
and through which they’ve been invaded multiple times in the past.