ALWAYS listen to your adversary in terms of rhetoric and actions on the ground. The initial Russian military objective was not to conquer all of Ukraine. The force mix and targeting didn’t support that. They certainly made errors in their initial assumptions. Internal corruption added to that— but that has been resolved, by ruthless Russian problem-solving.
Now, I am not so sure. As the West keeps feeding the fight, the gathering of Russian combat power with a very strong economy suggests they might have concluded Ukraine has got to go in order for them to have stability.
We are about to find out once Poland is cut off from Ukraine and the pincher movement starts to move.
The problem with “pincher” (or pincer?) movements from Belarus is that any major Russian offensive concentration is going to show up to US recon assets in time for the Ukrainians to concentrate against it. Interior lines, etc.
And that region is a very good place for first use of western tanks btw, besides the best access to western logistical support, close to the Polish border. Its also full of defiles, water obstacles, etc. That all is the southern side of the Pripyat marshes.
Russia’s initial war objectives included the “denazification” of Ukraine, which is just their newspeak term for regime change. The Russian combined airborne assault and armor thrust on Kyiv was clearly an attempt at a leadership capitation to accomplish this. Please don’t repeat the nonsense that Russia sacrificed its elite airborne units for just a diversion.
Russia’s continued repetition of its “denazification” condition shows that it hasn’t given up its goal of regime change.