Murph,
This has not been an “all-out” war from the Russian standpoint, but it has been from the Ukrainian one. Russia has been limited by internal politics, more than external sanctions, because the original story was not conducive to supporting a “national” no-holds-barred war. It is politically challenging for Putin to admit that this “small” military action has evolved into a major embarrassment for the Russian military and a continually expanding sinkhole of manpower and resources is beginning to rise to the surface of the national consciousness (Putin has consciously been recruiting troops from Western and Southern Russia, rather than from the middle class of European Russia which has hidden the size of the effort).
Just for “fun”, let’s ignore the EU, UK and US from the standpoint of being combatants and let’s look at the objectives and pressures on the two fighting parties.
One of them (Russia) has tactical nuclear weapons which they have not used because, while they might be expedient, they would elicited dramatic global blowback (but if confined to Ukrainian territory, likely no direct Western retaliation). They have also announced that if Russia felt an “existential” threat it would be free to use them. It is the definition of that word (by Russia) which is the limiting factor in the war - don’t forget, the Russian border is only a few miles from the front line, but Ukraine has not conducted troop action across the border (that we know of).
If Ukraine (assuming they had the ability) were to poke a couple of holes in the Kremlin or St. Pete, Russia might interpret that as one of those threats (or reclass this military action as a war and start a draft to replace lost soldiers - not as bad an outcome, but not a positive occurrence).
I don’t think Russia will feel threatened as long as Ukraine keeps to their side of the border, but the problem is that this war is about the status of Crimea, more than any other factor. Ukraine has legitimate claims to the area, but Russia has annexed it and has retaliated “spectacularly” every time Ukraine has done something there. It is my feeling that, should Ukraine eject Russia from its “mainland” and then attempt to take Crimea back, considering the importance to Russia of Sevastopol, that might open Pandora’s box.
I am not opposed to teaching Putin a lessen, nor am I opposed to Ukraine wearing down Russia’s conventional military abilities and I’m even more in favor of their retrieving their territory.
I am, however a realist and I suspect that Ukraine has lost Crimea “forever” (borders are apparently never forever in Europe) because none of its allies will support its responding “in-kind” to tactical nuclear weapons if Russia feels its borders have been crossed and thee weapons are used in a battlefield context (not against civilian targets).
When this mess is over, Russia will retain Crimea. Ukraine’s infrastructure will be in shambles and the country’s finances drained and its population displaced and many of its men killed or maimed. Russia will have lost a load of expendable Asian cannon fodder (from the standpoint of its European leadership), a substantial amount of its conventional weaponry and a great deal of money (but in return will continue to occupy Crimea). The West will have reduced its conventional weapon stockpiles, but not to a dangerous level, Europe will have suffered through a political disruption caused by a “cold winter” combined with Russian disinformation campaigns pumping up the Right. The US will have spent a good deal of money to supply arms and assistance, but because of its own chaotic political situation, there is no clear advantage to either political party.
The net result will have been the trashing of an entire country and a disruption of the world economic order just to achieve what amounts to a status quo of the situation before the war. From Russia’s standpoint, the war has hardened any chance of Ukraine becoming an ally in the near future.
Jeff