This went out with an unusually high amount of typographical errors and I didn't notice until Alexis read it to do the podcast days later. I apologize. I read over it a normal amount of times for some reason the proof reading just didn't take.
I was hoping to get more analysis and factual summary on the year of war and less of all the sarcastic jabs at the US and NATO, those really add nothing useful in my opinion, I prefer generally prefer professional analysis and facts. Opinion is great and valuable, but not when it looks heavily biased, as credibility is quickly eroded in that case (for example blaming Biden for starting the war...). Everyone is biased, and that's fine, but I feel it's important to be able to put ourselves above that during discourse.
In other news, when it comes to the sanctions, they have to be seen more as a form of long term punishment than any tool that effectively delivers immediate results. Look at Cuba and Iran - both have been punished for decades (Cuba much longer of course, but hey, they pointed nuclear missiles straight at the US...) and the effects of the sanctions are obvious when you look at the numbers (yes the people suffer the most, but the point is to inhibit economic growth). In terms of immediate results from sanctions, it makes it slightly more difficult for Russia's war economy to procure the required supplies, but using third parties is common in these situations. It also creates some headaches for exports as you have to find new customers, even for basic goods such as energy.
In terms of looking for the objectives and motivations for Putin in this war, there is no need to make any opinions, Putin has been clear about it all along. He even wrote a rather lengthy essay on the subject http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
He simply wanted to extract all western influence, allies and culture from Ukraine; Ukraine can be independent as long as it is under the influence and control of Putin. Nothing new here, just business as usual. He was indeed hoping for a quick capitulation and a change of government, and believed that Europe wouldn't dare confront him due to the gas, instead he got resistance and a NATO fueled Ukrainian army. I don't think he ever respected or was scared of the Ukrainian army; I doubt he had any strategic defense/national security objectives for this war as per your stated objective of destroying the Ukrainian military.
I am also not convinced by the argument that the longer it goes on, the better for Putin. Yes Russia has substantial capacity in terms of switching to a war economy and producing artillery rounds and soldiers at a significant rate and for a significant amount of time, but NATO countries are starting to ramp up their own war machines as well (as an example, Saab announced an annual production ramp up reaching 400k NLAWs). I also wonder about Russia's current amour production capacity in terms of keeping up with battle losses. There is an argument to be made that NATO's war industries, as they ramp up, would surpass Russia production capacity, and therefore, time becomes the enemy or Russia and Ukraine's best friend.
This went out with an unusually high amount of typographical errors and I didn't notice until Alexis read it to do the podcast days later. I apologize. I read over it a normal amount of times for some reason the proof reading just didn't take.
I was hoping to get more analysis and factual summary on the year of war and less of all the sarcastic jabs at the US and NATO, those really add nothing useful in my opinion, I prefer generally prefer professional analysis and facts. Opinion is great and valuable, but not when it looks heavily biased, as credibility is quickly eroded in that case (for example blaming Biden for starting the war...). Everyone is biased, and that's fine, but I feel it's important to be able to put ourselves above that during discourse.
In other news, when it comes to the sanctions, they have to be seen more as a form of long term punishment than any tool that effectively delivers immediate results. Look at Cuba and Iran - both have been punished for decades (Cuba much longer of course, but hey, they pointed nuclear missiles straight at the US...) and the effects of the sanctions are obvious when you look at the numbers (yes the people suffer the most, but the point is to inhibit economic growth). In terms of immediate results from sanctions, it makes it slightly more difficult for Russia's war economy to procure the required supplies, but using third parties is common in these situations. It also creates some headaches for exports as you have to find new customers, even for basic goods such as energy.
In terms of looking for the objectives and motivations for Putin in this war, there is no need to make any opinions, Putin has been clear about it all along. He even wrote a rather lengthy essay on the subject http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
He simply wanted to extract all western influence, allies and culture from Ukraine; Ukraine can be independent as long as it is under the influence and control of Putin. Nothing new here, just business as usual. He was indeed hoping for a quick capitulation and a change of government, and believed that Europe wouldn't dare confront him due to the gas, instead he got resistance and a NATO fueled Ukrainian army. I don't think he ever respected or was scared of the Ukrainian army; I doubt he had any strategic defense/national security objectives for this war as per your stated objective of destroying the Ukrainian military.
I am also not convinced by the argument that the longer it goes on, the better for Putin. Yes Russia has substantial capacity in terms of switching to a war economy and producing artillery rounds and soldiers at a significant rate and for a significant amount of time, but NATO countries are starting to ramp up their own war machines as well (as an example, Saab announced an annual production ramp up reaching 400k NLAWs). I also wonder about Russia's current amour production capacity in terms of keeping up with battle losses. There is an argument to be made that NATO's war industries, as they ramp up, would surpass Russia production capacity, and therefore, time becomes the enemy or Russia and Ukraine's best friend.