It is exactly what the Russians did in Syria.
The comment about arms manufacturers probably needs to be picked up. There is a lot of propoganda coming from both sides and I am finding myself increasingly disinterested in these partisan reports which are doing nothing to bring about a ceasefire. I feel that Russia had really shown it's true colours in this conflict and demonstrated that it is not fit to be a global citizen. By the same token, I still wonder what Zelenskiy realistically sees as the outcome. They have maintained their soverignty yet this has come at the cost of thousands of lost lives and the infrastructure of his country totally destroyed, He has led his country to ruin in the name of freedom. It seems that it is a matter of liberty at all costs and I am not convinced that this has been in the best interests of his people. The only winners in this conflict so far has been the West. It has been a boon for NATO.
With regard to "blaming the West," I think it is probably prudent to take a wider view. Strategically, I do not see how much more effectively the resources of the Russian military could have been tested. The poor training, equipment, logistics and command of the Russian military must have come as a great shock to NATO, none of whose members could have seriously expected the Russians to perform so badly 12 months ago. It is a proxy war for NATO whilst also being a massive stimulation for military innovation and industry let alone the contractors out there fighting alongside Ukranian troops. (Worthwhile flagging up the fact that this matter has never been put to the UK parliament albeit British troops and contractors are out there.) It is worthwhile remembering that many Eastern European countries still use Soviet Era equipment and weapons like their helicopters have been found to have been obsolete. Not only are we supplying Ukraine but there will also be a huge market for weapons produced by tyhe UK, US, France and Germany as armies around the globe will realise that the Russian gear is substandard.
It is my belief that NATO and the EU provoked Russia in to invading Ukraine through political, economic and military agrandissement. You can understood why a despot like Putin would think that he needed to respond. By the same token, the "special military operation" has destroyed Russia's credibility as a military power as well as seriously diminishing it's capabilities in real terms. For the West, it is a win / win situation. A potential foe and political pyriah is going to be humiliated and there is no credible exit policy for him in a campaign that he cannot win. Futhermore, shares in the arms industry must be going through the roof as money is currently expended to help Ukriaine and will ultimately to added to as other countries sense the need to upgrade. I must admit that it never foresaw NATO holding it's nerves in this matter and, by the same token, I can understand why, as long as the Russians do not resort to nuclear weapons,, certain people in the West would be happy to prolong Russia's embarrassment.
The "interesting" element will be how things will resolve themselves after the conflict. I cannot see the current Russian regime lasting the course. Furthermore, I reckon that loads of other countries like Iran, North Korea and China will be equally interested both because Russia's global importance will be severely reduced and with regard to how their own hardware / fighting forces might fare in a similar situation. I am also sure that many Western countries will be looking to get a piece of the pie when it comes to re-building Ukraine. To pick up on the more "worthy" position taken by newspaper like The Guardian, I do think that Russia had been provoked but would also argue that their actions have been unexcusable. I cannot see how anyone can come to a conclusion that Putin has any morality. However, I do think that it is naive not to identify the fact that the West is doing very well out of this conflict.
