I think the more ruthless russia is going to act, the more resistance ukraine mount even in defeat via guerrilla groups. So brutally conquering the cities only

I think the more ruthless russia is going to act, the more resistance ukraine mount even in defeat via guerrilla groups. So brutally conquering the cities only helps the military objective but not the overall one. It cements western support for the ukraine and sanctions, antagonises russia for the civilians. I think Putin really counts on europe to be weak, dividd and unwilling to act decisively. A brutal conquest will lead to large-scale public pressure on the governments on europe and heavy military support. Also, western europe ist still heavily influencing other parts of the world and can turn public opinion in the most distant places. So I don't think that Putin can establish an authoritarian regime against a united europe in Ukraine. Also, there are large land-borders and we have the much deeper pockets. We could pump NLAWs and Stingers in there like there's no tomorrow. You can't rule a nation using guided missiles. Even now ukraine experienced a renewed nationalism only fueled by the common enemy russia. It's the first step for failure, he can't win against the people. This article misses the point. His objective is not to win militarily, but to influence the nation or take it under his control. I also wonder whether his opinion on the basics is right. He dismisses Ukraine defence of the cities, but they still get a lot of supplies from western nations. If kiev is flooded with anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft weapons the assault will be more brutal.