I still believe it begun as a stunt to get concessions from the west but when the west called his bluff out Putin was forced to enter this debacle else he risked showing weakness and losing power by backing down. Yeah Ukraine is way too large and has way too much foreign support of all kinds for Russia to easily sweep it. The way this invasion was executed is obviously a mistake but it is not like accepting another NATO client state right under their industrial heartland is a good outlook for Russia. It makes sense that they perceive post-Euromaidan Ukraine as NATO aligned(therefore de facto anti-Russia).
Tbh it can be argued that this conflict was inevitable and matter of time since 2014. So Russia(from the POV of their self-interest) either should have a) Anticipate this conflict more clearly and rolled Ukraine over several years ago, before they could train/build army and get supplied by the west. b) Shouldn't have squandered their military budget for oligarch corruption and kept a competent reformist and modernizer in leadership like Serdyukov c) Prepared for fierce resistance from the beginning and create enough casus belli for at least partial mobilization instead of entering war with lackluster excuses and limiting themselves with current active personnel.
Based but realistically they aren't going to risk nuclear annihilation themselves.
Ya I think back in 2014 when Russia had control of Ukraine through the pro-Russian proxy government, and then somehow Russia lost that control, and in 2014 was at the end of that 6 year oil boom, as oil goes through 6 year booms and 6 years bear markets in price. So in 2014 Russia was doing well economically, had made unarguable progress in standard of living at home, and just had a ton of money. And meanwhile like you said this was before NATO was building up Ukraine, and Ukraine was poor and in shambles(which is why the Russians lost control of it, is they failed to run it because of their usual massive corruption).. the corruption only really works today if you are an oil state. Like the Gulf Kingdoms. Because essentially the corrupt they are stealing the resource wealth. And even though these shitty feudal societies have no real internal economy that can be taxed enough to support a modern state, the resources wealth can pay for the state if the resources production is big enough.
But Ukraine doesn't have the resources production, so the feudal model didn't work, which is why they were in such a crisis back in 2014. So like you said that was the moment to go in, and Russia did swoop in and take Crimea with no military resistance.
Once a pro-Western government came in Ukraine and then NATO was in there building up Ukraine, and in the last few years Ukraine actually has been making economic progress since the USA is setting up their state and reforming them to be a modern state. Then it was too late, the Ukrainians were going to fight if Russia came in, and the USA & co. were going to back the Ukraine government with huge amounts of money in that case. So then to go in Russia would need a world war level army and a brutal fight to overwhelm the Ukrainian army and take over the state. The 250,000 soldiers Russia went in with wasn't enough to take over Ukraine.
The problem with the half-ass strategy Russia had to transition to, to taking and holding the 4 SE provinces with ~125,000 Russian soldiers. Is imo its not enough soldiers to defend it over time. So the Ukrainians look like they are going to have like a 1 million man army by the end of the Summer. And there is going to be multiple big offensives the Ukrainians will likely launch in the Fall.
I view that Russia will have to mobilize a lot of the reserves if it wants to defend against that. Then it will be a big time slugfest, and war of attrition but against NATO funding. Granted Russia should be able to hold on until Winter when things will probably slow way down, then have time to reinforce things getting ready for the Spring offensives.
The thing is this mobilization should have been done before the war.
