the only way to demilitarize a state that is unwilling to do it is to destroy their army and their ability to fight
all the more reason for Russia to move aggressively to envelop and destroy elements of the UAF like those ‘routing’ from these front line positions—if this is still too dangerous for Russia, the UAF must not be in that bad of a spot
sticking to slow and steady when the enemy is running away is prolonging a conflict by giving them an opportunity to regroup later. now it’s possible the UAF really are in crisis, but if Russia doesn’t exploit that with big moves that’s as good as the Ukainians not collapsing in terms of how long it will take for the war to end
I have said it before: this conflict ends with the demilitarization and denazification of NATO. Ukraine is irrelevant at this point. It has’t been for a while.
Russia has no interest in destroying the Ukrainian forces, because the latter is already a spent force.
For them, the only means of destroying NATO is when Europe increases their defense budget spending and leading to the crumbling of their own economy. This is already happening, and ending the war now gives room for Europe to breathe and rebuild their economy.
As you might have noticed, the militarization of European NATO states will paradoxically lead to the demilitarization of NATO instead.
you’re just asserting direct contradictions. UAF not destroyed—but they’re spent, more military–demilitarization. but i’m really not interested in the layers upon layers you need to understand Russia’s 20-year-plan that totally exists and guides every cautious or backward step the Russian army seems to make.
if the Russians don’t want to destroy the UAF and continue the war in perpetuity, then the retreat at Adiivka (the event this comment thread is about) does not then herald a collapse of the Ukrainian position & the war will probably continue. which is what i was concluding, granted from different premises
This is a fair point. Hm. Maybe they’re genuinely concerned about escalation, nuclear proliferation? They only want to deal with one Nazi regime at a time and maybe mowing down the routing Nazis all at once will make Poland or the Baltics all slide into conflict at once? Like, control the flow, leak the dam don’t burst it. Speculation.
What is quickly ending the war going to do for Russia, except for risking higher casualties and giving Europe the room to breathe, as the latter is already going into austerity mode due to their increased military spending?
Russia’s only win condition in this war is economic in nature.
Remember, this is an industrial war - Russia can keep doing this forever while the EU is constrained by its monetary system and fiscal rules. The eurozone will not survive this if they truly want to defeat Russia in military terms. Europe ultimately has to make a choice, and all options available are worse for them.
all the more reason for Russia to move aggressively to envelop and destroy elements of the UAF like those ‘routing’ from these front line positions—if this is still too dangerous for Russia, the UAF must not be in that bad of a spot
I think slow and steady has done them nothing but good, they are in no rush, why start now?
sticking to slow and steady when the enemy is running away is prolonging a conflict by giving them an opportunity to regroup later. now it’s possible the UAF really are in crisis, but if Russia doesn’t exploit that with big moves that’s as good as the Ukainians not collapsing in terms of how long it will take for the war to end
I have said it before: this conflict ends with the demilitarization and denazification of NATO. Ukraine is irrelevant at this point. It has’t been for a while.
why would not pressing an advantage against a NATO proxy in any way be conducive to that
Russia has no interest in destroying the Ukrainian forces, because the latter is already a spent force.
For them, the only means of destroying NATO is when Europe increases their defense budget spending and leading to the crumbling of their own economy. This is already happening, and ending the war now gives room for Europe to breathe and rebuild their economy.
As you might have noticed, the militarization of European NATO states will paradoxically lead to the demilitarization of NATO instead.
you’re just asserting direct contradictions. UAF not destroyed—but they’re spent, more military–demilitarization. but i’m really not interested in the layers upon layers you need to understand Russia’s 20-year-plan that totally exists and guides every cautious or backward step the Russian army seems to make.
if the Russians don’t want to destroy the UAF and continue the war in perpetuity, then the retreat at Adiivka (the event this comment thread is about) does not then herald a collapse of the Ukrainian position & the war will probably continue. which is what i was concluding, granted from different premises
This is a fair point. Hm. Maybe they’re genuinely concerned about escalation, nuclear proliferation? They only want to deal with one Nazi regime at a time and maybe mowing down the routing Nazis all at once will make Poland or the Baltics all slide into conflict at once? Like, control the flow, leak the dam don’t burst it. Speculation.
What is quickly ending the war going to do for Russia, except for risking higher casualties and giving Europe the room to breathe, as the latter is already going into austerity mode due to their increased military spending?
Russia’s only win condition in this war is economic in nature.
Remember, this is an industrial war - Russia can keep doing this forever while the EU is constrained by its monetary system and fiscal rules. The eurozone will not survive this if they truly want to defeat Russia in military terms. Europe ultimately has to make a choice, and all options available are worse for them.