Part of the goal is to be a nuisance so Europeans pay a price for supporting Ukraine, in the hopes that we decide it's not worth the heat. Russia is banking on the west's refusal to face a conflict and the sacrifices it causes, kinda like a game of chicken.

We're about to hit a series of important elections as well (Spain, France, I think Germany soon as well?), hybrid warfare is supposed to influence in favor of extreme parties.

It's a major issue. On paper NATO can mop the floor with Russia even without the US backing, but nobody in a first world country wants to die in a ditch, and the endgame there is also unclear because Russia can play the nuke card if they're too threatened.

> On paper NATO can mop the floor with Russia even without the US backing,

I think that was true a two years ago, but Russia has been forced to adapt to the drone warfare of Ukraine as much as Ukraine has been forced to adapt to the drone warfare of Russia.

I suspect that right now, both Ukraine and Russia have independently got armed forces which could wipe the floor with the rest of non-naval NATO forces. And I'm only giving a "possibly" for the naval exception because of their limited production rate of long-rage drones so saturation attacks may be harder, not that it's impossible: we can already see the US navy being forced into a much longer distance stand-off range vs. Iran.

That said, I'm getting this position mainly from watching Anders Puck Nielsen videos, so take with the usual scepticism/pinch of salt for "internet commenter/armchair general".