I believe there is a LOT of infrastructure in range of Ukrainian weaponry now too though drones, storm shadow etc?
The Ukrainians are using the threat of these weapons extremely effectively. They've hit a few targets that sounded like they mattered but they are mostly holding back. The not so veiled threat to the Russians here is that anything they value within reach is a potential target. That includes command centers, troop concentrations, defensive weapons, air bases, etc. That's actually resulting in them pulling those things away from the battlefield. So, those missiles are doing their job without getting fired.
Instead, Ukraine targets oil refineries that produce fuel for the army / air force, with some success. This does not cause civilian casualties: though some employees might be hurt, I never heard of the workers dying as a result. That's the kind of infrastructure, along with military infrastructure, that is likely wise to attack on the Russian soil.
I certainly wouldn't cry over some Russians in Moscow feeling the impact of their own war. But unfortunately, Russia's trolls would instantly spin even an immediate reaction to the bombing of an UA power plant in a negative way.
Preemptive formulation and announcement: "If you X, we will escalate in Y way. If you do not X, then we will not."
Instead, there's a hodgepodge of reactive escalation, which is far less effective.
The point is to bargain your willingness to escalate into a self-limitation on your opponent's part.
F.ex. this war might never have happened if NATO had said, before the post-Crimea invasion, that if Russia further invades territorial Ukraine then it would supply massive amounts of arms to Ukraine.
* Russia, on the other hand, apparently never figured out that announcing everything as a red line and constantly making nuclear threats makes such announcements useless. But it seems like authoritarian regimes often have trouble interacting with freer information spaces.
The entire value of deterrence is to deter... not to respond.
https://ukraine-eu.mfa.gov.ua/en/news/27596-protocolon-the-r...
Nonetheless it seems clear now that the West could have come up with a greatly more coherent escalation strategy that it seems to have sleepwalked into.
And in a nuclear world, those threats can escalate to annihilation. The result is Mutually Assured Destruction, and choices are made based on whether you believe the other side is in fact crazy enough to commit suicide.
Russia knew that the US would supply arms. They also expected that they would be able to conquer the country before that could help. They were wrong, but that came as a surprise to everybody (except perhaps the Ukrainians).
The US keeps weighing how much they're going to escalate the threats. They've prevented Ukraine from using their weapons to attack Moscow, precisely because Putin has used Mutually Assured Destruction. Get anywhere near him, and he will use nuclear weapons to destroy the world.
Do you believe him? That is literally the most important question in the world right now, because if you guess wrong, the consequences go way, way beyond Ukraine.
They haven't thus far. And the US was a lot more pointed about deterrence (including nuclear escalation threats) in the 60s/70s.
The status quo is that Russia frequently threatens nuclear escalation to all sorts of Ukrainian actions, and the West... doesn't threaten anything preemptively.
Can you think of one instance thus far where the West preemptively said "If Russia does X, then we will Y" for clear Xs and Ys? And then did it?
It's more meaningful to actually do the thing than to talk about it. As you note, Russia's red lines are meaningless. We don't even really take his nuclear threats seriously.
The strategy has been to avoid escalation, but just to outlast Russia on its own terms. Russia is running its war badly. They seem willing to spend blood and treasure on it, and no amount of threat is going to stop that. Ukraine just needs to outlast it.
What's really going to succeed for them is not that the West failed to make enough threats, but that the US is about to capitulate. Under those circumstances, Ukraine likely cannot outlast it.
Some have said all along that the US should have enabled Ukraine to fight to win, rather than outlast. Not a threat, but just going ahead and fighting. Under that theory, Russia would see that it would take more damage than it could afford, and give up.
It's possible that this is correct. We'll never really know. The siege strategy seemed viable because the US did not expect to surrender so easily. Giving up in Ukraine wasn't really a major point in this election. But that is how war goes; you do your best with the information you have, and sometimes you fail anyway.
This is the part that feels like it's failed. Because the West has escalated, but only reactively to battlefield conditions and without preemptively announcing the steps that will be taken.
That ceded the bargaining power that, f.ex., a preemptive "We will give Ukraine surplus F-16s if _____" could have produced.
Putin is a paranoid coward and fears for his life like few people you know. No he's not going to "destroy the world", it would endanger his own life and the palaces he built for himself.
No it's not binary, there's a vast, vast gulf between limited nuclear use and a full-on attack on CONUS. In fact, any nuclear use by Russia would likely bring its rapid defeat, since their main allies (India and China) are nuclear armed countries with a border dispute and are very interested in the nuclear taboo staying intact.
No it's not "Mutually Assured Destruction", the mainstream of nuclear targeting is counter-force disarming strikes, and the US is perfectly capable of winning a nuclear war. "Winning" here means ending up in a situation where cities are mostly intact on both sides, but only one side is capable of threatening them. Moreover, being credibly capable of winning a nuclear exchange was (during the Cold War) and is necessary to keep European and Asian allies safe. No, militaries are not deliberately glassing cities if push comes to shove, it doesn't make any military or political sense. You don't kill a hostage to win a negotiation.
No, a nuclear war is not a "suicide". It's very bad news for everyone (although chances are we will see battlefield nuclear use in our lifetime), but there's an incredible amount of nuance and complexity. "Putin presses the red button and everyone's dead" is a take that is not even wrong.
For one, Ukraine ousted Poroshenko after just one term, because he didn't deliver.
Meanwhile Russia has been stuck in a cult of personality leadership since the beginning of the 21st century.
No, it's just very bad policy. Taken by a government in a very desperate situation.
The fact that you cite this as your primary example suggests that you aren't quite sure what "corruption" actually is.
Russia has one alternative to mass conscription though, stopping the war.
The problem with the mass conscription going on on paper in Ukraine is that it's not really applied in mass in practice, but only selectively targeting the poor people without connections who can't leave, bribe or game the system to escape the draft.
The wealthy men with means have long left the country or got papers to escape the draft, so only the poor suckers end up dying on the front line.
That's the problem, the selective draft. If it were truly a mass draft affecting the rich and poor alike evenly, things would be different, but that's not the case.
Hell, I would dodge the draft too if I could. Why should I die to protect the wealth of some oligarchs and the interests of great powers? What did the country do for me that deserves my sacrifice? What even is a country if not just a lot of land that doesn't really belong to me but to some oligarchs and foreign corporations who exploited me every step of my life? Fuck'em! I don't care about that land since I don't own any of it, I care about my life, and I can start a new life in another land. If I must die to protect it I want to see first the rich and powerful people dying alongside with me instead of drinking champagne abroad.
Could you expand on this? Why did Russia have no choice apart from trying to annex Ukraine?`Because to me it appears like they have all the choice, still, they just don't want to stop trying.
You would think that would be the fault of Putin to turn Russia into a neo-nazi country and annexing neighbours but apparently not.
And yeah sure it's also about money as well, Ukrainians compare the situation in Poland and Romania with the situation in Russia and Belarus. Let's say that all the Russian propaganda in the world means nothing against such a wealth gap.
Ukrainians don't want to stay poor in Russia's influence the same way that the rest of eastern europe didn't as well.