If a nation annexes a part of a country and holds onto it, it is going to view that bit of land as more important then the strategic city that they took during a following war. Order of precedence does make it "more Russian". Along with the fact their entire line about oppressed Russians will be really strong in Crimea given the large Russia population there, and oddly fewer Crimean Tartars.
Except they're not. Crimea is too important, its too, well, "Russian". Crimea has been Russian, while every other bit of taken territory started as Ukrainian this war. Russia isn't just going to let Ukraine take Crimea back, it is simply too important.
You are confusing rhetoric with reality. There is a lot of talk about how this and that territory is actually Russian. Dude, I'm pretty Russian myself, and so is my city. I know Ukrainian but I don't use it in my day-to-day life. Only when I'm dealing with the state (official documents, etc.) or sometimes when talking to people from western Ukraine, to not get rusty. This doesn't mean Russian state owns me or my city. This is all bollocks for gullible people who think that if someone speaks Spanish as the first language, he probably wants Spain to conquer his town.
No, Russian-speaking people here know what's up. And trust me, Crimea is a bargaining chip just like Kherson was, like Kharkov and Donbas and what have you. Crimea is the most precious chip for purely geopolitical reasons and not because it is "more Russian" than others. Kharkov is more Russian than Crimea but it drove a steel fist right into Putin's ass and he backed down from there without a single word, really proud of my guys from Kharkov.
Also, you can't be cornered as long as you can withdraw, make a deal at any moment and call it a victory. So no, I don't share your analysis at all.
No. The harder they lose the more likely they are to want to escalate. The harder they lose the more they'll think that their state is actually at risk. Putin is very much a cornered Rat at this point.
I am surprised that 9 months into the war people still cling to these talking points after they were proven wrong again and again by the actual events.
I still think all of those goals fall within a broad existing framework of "pushing away western influence". As schizophrenic as they seem, Putin or the Russian press couldn't get away with explicitly declaring that the war was about expanding the Russian state. Compare this to the USSR whose geopolitical ideology was based purely on toppling capitalist or feudal governments and expanding the Soviet system.
I agree yet I maintain my understanding that no "ideological limit" exists there for Russia.
Russia is not a totalitarian state where there is an overarching idea that drives the people and the elites. Nor a democracy, where citizens/NGOs are politically active and push/check the political agenda of the elites. It's an authoritarian state where the society was actively politically de-mobilized for decades and where the elites create a sort of faux ideology, manipulate it to match the current agenda and actual events, and can basically turn it upside down if needs be.
I remember during Putin's first tenure he seriously intended for Russia to join NATO. But was spurned. He was okay with gay people, liberal values. And so were the Russian people. During his third tenure, he made some very hostile claims and actions toward the West. And again had popular support, and suddenly the people became homophobic, traditionalist, xenophobic and revanchist, etc, etc. In 10 years NATO could be Russia's best friend and the transition could be just as seamless if that's expedient for Russian elites.
Also, you can't ignore multiple Putin's statements where he says something along the lines of "we're just taking what is ours, Like Peter I when he fought the Swedes". They can and will absolutely get away with "expanding" or as they'll put it in revanchist manner "restoring" Russian state line if they can make it real.
Well yeah, but any "defensive" army can be used to invade. I don't think they altered their doctrine just for this war, as evidenced by how much of a disaster it's been.
It looks awfully bad as invading force as we can see, why do you think it was meant for invasion? It's stated goal is to fight during nuclear engagement, even tanks are designed to do it.
I think it was meant for invasions looking at how it was reformed during Serdyukov (Georgia invasion, and pre- first invasion in Ukraine). It became a blitz-krieg force. Very small (compared to what it used to be), heavily mechanized, very mobile. A disproportionally large part of it is VDV (paratroopers, not a defensive unit). And so on.
It's been a disaster not because it was a defensive army but because it was a blitz-krieg oriented offensive army. Kyiv was very close to being taken, if it fell, the war would be over. We got lucky back then, and when they withdrew from Kyiv we both knew they can no longer win.
