Russia's strategy clear, Attrition, both Ukraine and NATO.

 BRIDGES OVER DNIEPER TELL IT ALL

WHO CAN ENDURE MORE SUFFERING?

While we continually hear rumors of peace negotiations and that Trump will end the war in a short time, the reality is cleary much different. After the initial invasion in 2022 and the failed peace talks in Istanbul, Russia reset its strategy that is now clear and focused. It has not changed and it is not likely to change in the near future. It is a strategy of attrition of men supplies, equipment and money coupled with the results of misguided attempts to damage Russia by cutting off energy to Europe.

While many are still delusional in defeating Russia, the reality is the clock is in Russia's favor. Russia is well aware of their history in defeating foreign enemies and NATO is the enemy of Russia and NATO expansion to contain and encircle Russia has been planned and implemented for 30 years.

The great plains of Ukraine have been a treacherous and disastrous 800 miles for foreign armies, from Napoleon to Hitler and now NATO. Logistics is always a serious consideration in war, if you cannot supply your army, it will be defeated in short order.  While many have stated that Russia's slow advance indicates that it is weak and unable to make much progress in occupying Ukraine.  The reality is that Russia wants to fight this war close to its border, its logistics are short and uncomplicated. It has always been aware that it could become an all out NATO war and it would force the enemy to move men and materials over 800 miles to be at the Russian border.

A clear affirmation of this strategy are the railroad and highway bridges over the Dnieper river, a huge river something like the Mississippi. Russia could have removed these bridges early in the war and caused great logistical problems for NATO's supply to Ukraine, yet they never touched these bridges, as if to say keep sending all that wealth and treasure and we will make it a huge scrap pile in eastern Ukraine, close to our supplies.

Some claim that they kept the bridges to be able to enter western Ukraine, but the reality is that then Ukraine would destroy the bridges to keep the Russia in the east. Russia has never desired to occupy western Ukraine and that is still the case. 

The plan is attrition to the point of an inability to resist. Ukraine's manpower is near that point, but they are encouraged to keep fighting and lower the recruitment age, but it is futile, the longer it goes on the weaker Ukraine will become.

As for NATO, the smaller nations have already indicated that their cupboards are bare of available weapons to send. Every current government on the continent is about to be replaced and their energy shortages are having a decided negative effect on their economies. Is NATO expansion worth suicidal economic warfare? While Washington believes that Europe may be expendables in the geopolitical battle against Russia, do the citizens of Europe agree?

While to now Russian citizens have not had to endure too much discomfort, but if it should need to, I expect that the majority of Russians will out endure the west, they are self sufficient in food and energy and have a history of great endurance against all odds. 

Again, would Ukraine have been better off as a neutral nation able to trade freely with the west and east? Would Europe be in a better place without this conflict and be able to access energy with long term contracts at under market prices as they did before the war? Is the United States in a better place in the world than it was before the Ukraine project?

It is now all about face saving and damaging Russia without regard to any of those realities. The answer to all the above questions is NO. Maybe escalation is all that is needed, after this $Trillion dollar war in expended wealth and lost prosperity will another Trillion bring success? I expect it is time for everyone to start asking those questions, is face saving for the bureaucrats worth all this death and destruction?