tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826101215822428783.post5635258835670140412..comments2024-02-24T19:42:39.876+05:30Comments on Bill the Butcher: The SMO is DoneBill the Butcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08436195659154078021noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826101215822428783.post-68064976862939141012023-06-27T16:25:36.601+05:302023-06-27T16:25:36.601+05:30Regarding approach #2 -- it's likely just part...Regarding approach #2 -- it's likely just part of Russia's strategy to "draw everything out" as some sort of a "low-grade conflict" where the damage (onto the Russian side) would still be "small enough" for Russia to occasionally fix without too much trouble.<br /><br />It's generally known that US/NATO military spending far exceeds even the whole federal budget of Russia. Russia knows this. Russia does *not* want a full-on serious war with NATO (from which Russia will likely not emerge unscathed anyway). The point of Russia "conceding" territory, gains, etc is simply to not rile up NATO's feathers too heavily / much even further. Russia does *not* want NATO to "get serious".<br /><br />Keeping those "bridges" / ammo depots / railroads / power stations / etc alive, and allowing the Donbass and other areas to get shelled, is simply a way for Russia to pass itself as "weak" to US/NATO and thus encourage US/NATO to limit its investment in Ukraine (hey war efforts can be expensive anyway) and thus keep Ukraine in that much "weak-er" state that Russia would so much more prefer. Of course -- those targets are still up for destruction "occasionally" via retaliatory strikes from Russia --- you know, should Ukraine get a little "too-bloodthirsty", or "too-capable", or "too-strong" -- you get the gist. Kind of even perhaps like a way of making US/NATO "tailor" its investment into Ukraine --> invest not that much, then Russia will be kind and gentle and leave those big nice juicy strategic targets alone. But invest too much and make the Ukrainians a little too strong/bloodthirsty for Russia's liking?? Well, then watch Russia make all those targets go boom! (aka the pattern of retaliatory strikes/spikes every now and then, in between the much longer periods of Russia...... well, being much quieter).<br /><br />Perhaps this is also why Prigozhin was complaining the whole time too -- you know, perhaps he was "too successful" against the Ukrainian forces. You know -- something's that plenty fine for Russia when the Ukrainians get "too strong" for Russia's liking, but, when they don't....... well, that Wagner group is just gonna have to get temporarily defunded and/or get its ammo + misc stuff limited. And, of course, as Prigozhin was likely not really "briefed" on any of this either (that is, in a way, that his "main role" is not so much to "win", anything but more like "just buy Russia time"!), it's no surprise he was accusing MoD of treason all the time. <br /><br />But hey -- it's not like "buying time" is a strategy you can openly say on the Russian airwaves either and expect the public to get all riled up gungho in support of the war effort! (At which point, it might not only just be Prigozhin, but also possibly even the Russian public, accusing the government of treason as well!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com