>>512188674
>I have to assume at some point Putin wants to WIN, and stop fighting.
While I agree, there may also be a second motive.
The war right now has barely any impact on Russias economy while it is devastating for NATO (politically, economically and militarily).
I think the first two are obvious and need no further detail.
But if we look at the military side, the US has delivered about 60-80 Abrams (it turned out from Ukr officers that the US had delivered more than twice the amount officially admitted to).
The US has ~2000 in active service. That's a loss of almost 4% of the tank fleet in a war they aren't even fighting in.
It looks worse for Patriots where, ballpark figures, 30-40% of US land based air defences are lost in Ukraine.
Ukraine has lost nearly all of the 400 Bradleys they received, out of a US total stock of 4285. That's almost 10% of the US Bradley inventory. Again lost in a war they aren't even directly fighting in.
Meanwhile Russian stocks are increasing.
So maintaining this type of attrition against the US/NATO, even in a purely military point of view, is a win in itself.
And this ties into the economic side.
Will the west kill itself financially to re-arm?
How will they finance it if not by even more debt?
>I know for a fact he wants to take Odessa since it's a historically Russian city. It's also one of those warm water ports the Russians obsess over so much.
The only question is what to do with the remaining land.
I have speculated that allied nations who need more farmland (like North Korea, Iran etc) could be offered to maintain peace with their own military force while developing the lands for agriculture, oil etc.
After all, Russia has a land bridge connecting both of them to Ukraine so it would be sanction proof.
And this removes the maintenance burden and risk from Russia while also providing a revenue.
And most importantly, this would be sustainable for Russia.