I mean Putin pretty much said as much, in his own words.
> The land bridge to crimea is almost in the bag. That's one milestone that holds incredible strategic value to Moscow in and of itself. It controls the sea of azov now and has entrenched its previously precarious strategic position on the black sea (site of its only warm water port).
I broadly agree, but the cost of kyiv "feint" has been astronomical.
Had Putin just pushed from crimea, he could have taken Donbas and Luhansk without anywhere near as much loss, or international condemnation. I mean he could have been done by now. (no extended supply lines...)
Don't get me wrong, Putin is just going to continue to grind eastern Ukraine, because he can. but, I suggest anything less than complete control is admission that the "Nazis" are better.
Putin has three rhetorical themes for domestic propaganda consumption but they are vague enough to be able to claim success under a range of criteria on the ground, some of which certainly will be met. He's not dumb enough to paint himself into a corner like that.
Western propaganda has and will try to characterize almost anything less than the total capitulation of Ukraine and tanks rolling on lviv as a crushing defeat. Comparisons to the winter war will permeate twitter to the point of tedium after this is all done because Russia will get some territory.
>Don't get me wrong, Putin is just going to continue to grind eastern Ukraine, because he can. but, I suggest anything less than complete control is admission that the "Nazis" are better.
Defeating the azov brigades in mariupol is probably sufficient to claim success against the nazis. Thats where all the fighters with swastikas tattooed on them were anyway. A parade of dead swastika tattooed bodies and a few stories of them using human shields after winning will satiate the domestic audience.
If he loses there then yea he really cant claim victory under any circumstances but thats increasingly unlikely.
Mostly agree. but given the bluster of the on air pundits, some of them will need special briefings.
> Comparisons to the winter war will permeate twitter
Perhaps, but I don't think people realise just how bad Finland was for the USSR. The land gained was nowhere near worth the effort.
> Thats where all the fighters with swastikas tattooed on them were anyway I've never understood this bit. Yes, the Azov have ultra nationalists in them, but then the some of the Donbas fighters appear to be wearing Totenkompf badges. If you're going to be anti nazi, don't wear SS badges.
But that aside, are Russian state parading captured "nazis" on TV yet? surely you'd be doing that to show progress no?
Especially when parents and wives start to realise that their significant other isn't communicating anymore.
but I digress.
The real issue comes from holding all that land. Its not like the populace are going to take it lying down
Precisely. This is how the west will probably characterize this war in retrospect too.
>But that aside, are Russian state parading captured "nazis" on TV yet? surely you'd be doing that to show progress no?
Not until the city is secured. Similarly it took 2 days until after the pullout before we started hearing about the Bucha war crimes.
Donbass had a huge amount of best Ukrainian corps stationed, taking them out would take months in any scenario short of regime change in Kiev. This is what will happen now and there would be huge loss of human life from both sides (but especially Ukrainian once pocket around their troops is formed).
The western propaganda assumes that Putin had one success scenario - just the most optimistic one - rather than a range of them.
Attempting to take Kyiv was a gamble that didnt work out but it also wreaked havoc on Ukrainian military infrastructure around kyiv and took heat off the eastern front. A gamble that didnt pay off but not a 100% waste and not even a particularly bad gamble.
The land bridge to crimea is almost in the bag. That's one milestone that holds the highest strategic value to Moscow in and of itself. It controls the sea of azov now and has entrenched its previously precarious strategic position on the black sea (site of its only warm water ports).
It also provides land buffer against the economic and energy chokepoint that is the land bridge between the caspian and the black sea.
The Russians would settle for a bruised, broken and weakened independent Kyiv. They wont settle for a mariupol that might host NATO forces. Theyll gladly nuke it rather than see that.