If these assertions are surprising to readers, it is because the outpourings of Western military punditry have been so dismal: overly credulous of Ukrainian narratives, locked in a river of thinking that is outmoded, and exceedingly inclined to disparage or ignore obvious aspects of Russian military capability. In war it is perfectly sensible to lie to one’s enemy —indeed it is highly recommended; it is disastrous, though, to lie to oneself which, in fact, has been a main industry of the Western defence establishment for an unfortunately long time. Eventually, though, reality trumps wishful thinking and it is doing so now increasingly obviously on the Russian steppe.
I don't listen to US critics, but the Ukraine has been pretty hedged in their statements. Whether they understood that they needed to get as many resources as possible was independent of whether as pessimistic as possible was the best strategy.
I don't really see why the West would be bothered by a long drawn out conflict. I think the other superpowers felt more relaxed when the US was properly tied up in Afghanistan, a defeat and withdrawal makes them much less predictable.
I still wonder why the west hasn’t supplied long range anti shipping missiles in bulk, allowing Ukraine to destroy the Black Sea fleet through a saturation attack. Russia wants Crimea for Sevestapol naval base. They should be shown that’s not viable.
They already know it's not viable, that's why they tried to take the whole country. The South-East Russian border, as a whole, is very hard to defend; one of the main objectives of the campaign (and arguably of the long-running Donbass "insurgency") was to solidify control of areas that can act as better buffers, protecting Crimea as well as the current Russian border. That's also the premise that Russian diplomats tried to put forward for talks: "we leave you Ukraine as an entity, you leave us the strategic bits of it that we need".
This is what doesn’t make sense. If Ukraine joined NATO, they would never attack Russia, as it would escalate into a MAD scenario. Ukraine had no reason to attack Russia other than to regain Crimea, and Russia had no reason for Crimea other than their naval base, and of course the Russian speaking population in Crimea.
> Ukraine had no reason to attack Russia other than to regain Crimea
Having a direct flank open to NATO troops at any time, regardless of why they might be on the march, was always a strategic problem no matter what. It was less of a problem when such troops where a couple of borders away; it is a pretty big issue today. They tried to address it with the dirty war in Donbass, but clearly it wasn't going as well as they hoped. Putin just decided to try and cut the knot.
Ironically though, by trying to claim the whole country and failing, he created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Before this, there was very little realistic chance of Ukraine ever joining NATO, nobody in the alliance wanted them in (not even Eastern countries for which it would be a useful buffer: they would lose the relevancy they get by being "the border"). Now, if they manage to maintain statehood by the end of this conflict, it will be politically difficult to keep them out.
> Russia had no reason for Crimea other than their naval base
That naval base is a key element of force-projection for Russia since boats had sails. They fought multiple wars for it and will not renounce it, short of catastrophic humiliation on the battlefield - something that today would probably involve exchanging nukes.
Germans doesn’t seem too concerned with French troops on its western border. Russia chooses to maintain its militaristic posture. It could also opt to end its militaristic ways, and join Europe.
Main reason is that naval war hasn't been important. After sinking the Moskava, neither side has enough ships to do anything. This might change after the end of the grain agreement.
Ukraine probably doesn't want anti-ship missiles. They would prefer cruise missiles like Storm Shadow for attacking ground targets. They also make their own Neptune anti-ship missile for defense. Plus, Sevastopol is heavily defended, Ukraine has avoided saturation attacks and makes more effective smaller attacks. They have lots of more important targets.
Finally, the west doesn't want to escalate the conflict with Russia. Most of the Black Sea Fleet is hiding in Crimea or Russia. If Crimea is too dangerous, they can retreat to Novorossiysk.
It’s a matter of economics at this time. The naval vessels in Sevestapol are extremely expensive to build. Destroying them will force Russia to commit resources to rebuilding them. Although not a critical goal for Ukraine, this make sense for Ukraine’s western allies
