Why wasn't the "plenty of strategic depth" used to ensure that the offensive on Kiev succeeded? Or even to hold onto Kharkov or Kherson?
I think it's pretty clear at this point that Western military budgets can prop up Ukraine enough to keep fighting on indefinitely, albeit at a major human cost.
By this time the only result of a drawn-out war I can see is just more troops and equipment sacrificed into no-man's-land.
There were 3 objectives to the "SMO": denazify, demilitarize, defend Donetsk and Luhansk.
It was clear that the plan hinged around taking Kiev and installing a sympathetic government. Not only would this have backfired (such a government would have made Yanukovich look wildly popular in comparison), it pushed the entire Ukrainian political sphere towards the ultra-nationalists.
Ukraine as a country is now unified around the interests and fever dreams of the worst people therein, and their lib president cannot help but do their bidding too.
Contrary to popular belief, Russia does not have the military budget to destabilize everywhere on earth. the US military budget is over 10 times the size of Russia's. Over a month into winter and Europe is still firm on its self-destructive sanctions in support of Ukraine. Russia might have stockpiled weapons but they don't really stand to win an economic war of attrition against the majority of weapons-producing countries on the planet.
Ukraine was "running out of artillery shells" (and also artillery pieces) 6 months ago. Then somehow they retook a whole bunch of strategic positions.
The war is bad for Russia, bad for Europe, extremely bad for Ukraine, good for Russian capitalists, and good for the American MIC. The only benefit that it really has to the world is diverting the attention of American foreign policy, and empowering Venezuela and China.
Why wasn't the "plenty of strategic depth" used to ensure that the offensive on Kiev succeeded? Or even to hold onto Kharkov or Kherson?
I think it's pretty clear at this point that Western military budgets can prop up Ukraine enough to keep fighting on indefinitely, albeit at a major human cost.
By this time the only result of a drawn-out war I can see is just more troops and equipment sacrificed into no-man's-land.
deleted by creator
There were 3 objectives to the "SMO": denazify, demilitarize, defend Donetsk and Luhansk.
It was clear that the plan hinged around taking Kiev and installing a sympathetic government. Not only would this have backfired (such a government would have made Yanukovich look wildly popular in comparison), it pushed the entire Ukrainian political sphere towards the ultra-nationalists.
Ukraine as a country is now unified around the interests and fever dreams of the worst people therein, and their lib president cannot help but do their bidding too.
Contrary to popular belief, Russia does not have the military budget to destabilize everywhere on earth. the US military budget is over 10 times the size of Russia's. Over a month into winter and Europe is still firm on its self-destructive sanctions in support of Ukraine. Russia might have stockpiled weapons but they don't really stand to win an economic war of attrition against the majority of weapons-producing countries on the planet.
Ukraine was "running out of artillery shells" (and also artillery pieces) 6 months ago. Then somehow they retook a whole bunch of strategic positions.
The war is bad for Russia, bad for Europe, extremely bad for Ukraine, good for Russian capitalists, and good for the American MIC. The only benefit that it really has to the world is diverting the attention of American foreign policy, and empowering Venezuela and China.