Yeah, how effective were those train loads of leopards and M1’s? And where are they now?
Of course they denounced western arms shipments, but short of attacking western ships directly drawing an inevitable NATO response there wasn’t much they could do so they adapted.
Demilitarization. They’ve exhausted NATO’S collective equipment and ammo reserves and have forced the EU into a position where they could only fight a conventional war for maybe a few weeks before they run out of ammo and tanks themselves while Russia’s nationalized military industry can mobilize and increase output exponentially. They’re just letting the EU continue sending expensive munitions and equipment to Ukraine where it is promptly demolished. They know who they are dealing with and understand how to play the long game.
Russia already has control of eastern Ukraine which was what they set out to achieve in the first place. At this point, they are just grinding every last bit of Ukrainian fighting capacity to dust so Ukraine will be unwilling and unable to have any leverage in eventual negotiations. Attrition is their bread and butter and they said from the beginning they will go as long as it takes.
People also way over estimate the ubiquity of drones. They are a nuisance but they are not able to halt an advance of tens of thousands let alone hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Drones added another dynamic element to modern war, but they are not able to win a war on their own.
This was always going to happen. Ukraine is going to totally devolve into a void run by extremist warlords and they are going to lash out at anyone and everyone. Look up the centuria project. Once the war ends with Russia they’ll turn their attention towards the EU.
Ukraine and Ukrainians themselves aren’t a threat (for the most part). But Ukraine is being used as a proxy by the west. And it is the west that is pushing for Ukraine to continue the war for the price of Ukrainian lives. And it is the west that is threatening Russia via Ukraine. Yes, Ukraine itself was a prize to plunder but the wider goal was to undermine Russia and isolate China.
Either opposing ruling class in Ukraine, the west or Russia, stands a lot to lose.
Mostly however, it is because it doesn’t as actually affect anything anymore, particularly those in the Russian oligarchy. It’s like the same reason we won’t stop fighting wars, they do not affect those in charge.
I assume you mean in terms of immediate physical harm? Because wars under capitalism are manifestations of infighting amongst the bourgeoisie. This war is only happening because of the effects Ukraine fully joining NATO would have had on the Russian bourgeoisie. Likewise, the western bourgeoisie is only interested in Ukraine because of the position of vulnerability it would immediately put the “axis of resistance” into.
The ruling classes are very much affected by competition and conflict.
Also “decision making centers” as I understand it has mostly been a veiled threat to the west. Because the real decision making centers are in London, Poland, Germany. And Russia is constantly doing this dance with the EU NATO that they’re becoming members to the conflict, they are members to the conflict, they’re totally legitimate targets and Russia wants to bomb them. But Russia isn’t willing to risk a wider war by bombing Rammstein airbase in Germany or Mi6 HQ in London though hitting either with an Oreshnik would assuredly seriously hamper the Ukrainian war by hampering intelligence supply, killing analysts and throwing their enemy into disarray. It’s just that the consequences leading from that of the west getting directly involved or otherwise upping the ante (giving Ukraine a nuke) doesn’t warrant that risk.
Hence the campaign of attrition. Russia said from the beginning it understands it is essentially at war with NATO and that it is prepared for the war to go on as long as needed. Russia knows the head of the snake isn’t in Ukraine which is why it said demilitarization is the name of the game. They’re just going to grind the fighting capacity of Ukraine to oblivion until Ukrainians themselves refuse to fight any more. Decapitation strikes on any meaningful command structures aren’t really an option.
I was gonna say, I’m pretty sure azov never actually disbanded they were just incorporated into the Ukrainian military.
A war of attrition is actually a strategy targeting military fighting capacity directly. That includes but is not solely limited to logistical disruption. Which is a more economic strategy by making the war more expensive. If Russia just prevented Ukraine from moving stuff around without destroying said stuff then nothing really changes. Ukraine will just rebuild whichever channel and continue on. Russias stated aim of attrition is demilitarization. Meaning they want to destroy Ukraines fighting capacity entirely. We saw this play out during Ukraines first major counter offensive in the spring of 2024 where Russia forced Ukraine to expend the entire stockpile of weapons and munitions accumulated over the previous 2 years fighting through layered Russian defensive works just to end up back where they started. And then Russia rapidly advanced again elsewhere, up to Bakhmut before withdrawing and forcing Ukraine to do the same again and commit entire battalions. Ukrainian soldiers themselves describe a pattern where the Russians would take a town, then withdraw before the Ukrainians countered and when they advanced the Russians would hit them from every direction with artillery and retake the town again. And so on until Ukraine could no longer do so. This is attrition. Not blowing up a few tunnels and bridges.