Unlike some of our fellow Kiwis commenting here I don't have - nor do I purport to have - the ability to read minds, so I can only speculate; I have a hard time believing the Russians actually thought that forcing regime change on the Ukrainians was actually a possibility with the force they brought to bear against the force they were going to be fighting. Additionally, assault against the breakaway regions had been ramping up for months before the invasion, as had AFU forces in the area. I doubt the Russians seriously believed this was a precursor to an invasion, so the only reason for the presence of those forces was an all-out assault on the rebels. With that area pacified, and given the fact that naZielensky made a big show of hosting US wargames and was beating his chest about wanting nukes, it stands to reason they believed that the region would become a hot zone at some point in the future.
In my view, the primary point of this conflict is to deny the US/EU/NATO a forward operating location in Eastern Ukraine and show that they're serious about not wanting more nukes on their border.
I don't necessarily approve of their way of going about it, but trying to negotiate with an adversary that's been bound and determine to get missiles into that region for at least twenty years wasn't getting them anywhere.
The Russians amassed around 100,000 soldiers on the border at the start of the war. That's more than enough to achieve a regime change, especially with how close they where to Kyiv and the expected poor showing on the AFU's part. The conflicted in the contested regions never really ended and I don't really see a reason as to why the Russians would just stop at there. The Ukrainian gov isn't going to just let the Russians take land and that evidently what happened as we're in the 2nd month of a war. So, the only way to stop the war from the Russian perspective is to destroy the AFU and take the rest of the country.
The issue with Ukraine becoming a part of NATO, EU or even hosting US nukes is a complete red herring to me. Any conflicted between Russia and NATO is going to be nuclear and Russia is in no more danger from those nukes now than they would have been if they were right on their doorstep. ICBMs are extremely fast and MIRVs make stopping them extremely hard, a few hundred miles of territory isn't going to make Russia any safer from the US.
It's not to say it isn't a concern or that the Americans don't have from on that but if that's the goal then they've shot themselves in the foot. The whole region has been spooked and the war has driven many nations, Ukraine included, deeper into the Western sphere of influence.
Good question; perhaps it's enough to illustrate that while the AFU has put up a fight they aren't really much of a threat to Russia and that if they're intent on making trouble the Russians are going to deal with it on Ukraine's doorstep.
I made a post earlier in this thread stating what I think about both the Russian and Ukrainian showing in this war but here's the cliff notes. Neither side is wining, Ukraine is extremely dependant on aid but they've fought very well. The Russians on the other hand have shown a complete lack of understanding for combined arms and how to use armor properly. The loses they've had will be hard to replace and the Russian military has been severely weakened.
The world is enamored with the cross-dressing song-and-dance man right now, it's true, and while he'd had some degree of appeal, upon election he did the exact opposite of what he said he was going to do when he was running. Time will tell what becomes of him, but I suspect at some point a more level-headed figure will emerge, particularly if the extremist factions take a beating in this conflict - which they seem to be.
I'm not convinced "control" - in the sense that, among others, @UVB-76 means - is the ultimate objective.
I don't see how this answers my question. Ukraine is torn between East and West, with both sides seeing any future relationship be mutually exclusive. How can Russia get what it wants out of a country that doesn't align with them on key issues? They can't. The only answer for Russia is a regime change.
That's a hard question to answer given I don't know what Ukraine's "national identity" is supposed to be. I know what some of these falsely-called "right wing" groups, GayZov being the most frequently mentioned shiny thing, but hardly the only such group, see the "Ukrainian" identity being vehemently opposed to anything and everything "Russian", and all things "Ukrainian" being superior to all else, but I don't believe that's a view held by the majority of the people of that nation.
If you know what this "national identity" supposedly is, please tell me.
Is simply hating the people, language and culture of a neighboring nation that you share countless similarities with a valid "national identity"?
A national identity has nothing to do with what you or I think about it. They can build it on hating the Russians, the Americans or anyone else but since you've pointed out how much the Ukrainian identity is tied to hating Russia, I have to ask one question. If in the hypothetical situation we were talking about before, where the Russians take the country, will the Ukrainians be allowed make hating Russians their identity?
Because if they can't then it doesn't seem like the Russians care much about self-determination.
