If you've read any of the more not-on-the-narrative books on the Ukraine conflict like Scott Horton's Provoked or Jonathan Haslam's Hubris, for example, it's quite clear from the evidence that it was the USA that wanted a 'long war' in Ukraine, as a means to bleed Russia dry and ideally, effect a regime change in the Kremlin. So once Russia was 'neutralized' their focus could be turned to China.

Now this has all been forgotten as the EU/NATO establishment try to pivot the narrative to it being Putin that wants a long war in order to bleed dry Ukraine and it's EU/NATO backers and gain more territory to improve his negotiating position at any peace talks.

For example, regarding Putin's 'war aims', the Council on Foreign Relations states:

[https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/what-does-putin-really-want-ukraine]

Broadly speaking, his goals fall into three baskets: weakening or disrupting Ukraine’s ties with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), stymieing Ukrainian nationalism, and expanding territorial gains.

See the NATO debunking site [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm] for the full whitewash treatment.

This pivot is another masterful deflection from the truth that the war was provoked by the USA, starting with the right-wing nationalist backed coup in Kiev, actively prolonged by the Biden Administration and Senators like Lindsay Graham (It's the best money we ever spent) [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lindsey-graham-russians-dying/best money we ever spent], and provisioned by the West to the tune of billions of dollars of weapons funding, most of which benefited their MICs, rather than their own people who saw their energy costs rocket and their welfare benefits cut.

This war was always about NATO expansion eastwards and crucially into the Ukraine, a trigger that everyone, for years, expected Russia to respond to negatively but evidently really didn't care about as it would be Ukraine that would be wrecked and Russians and Ukrainians that would be displaced or die.

Then when Russia did respond negatively, the West got what it wished for - another European conflict to justify the existence of NATO to combat the Russian 'threat' to European democracy.

It seems hardly credible that there are people who believe that Russia wants to assume the military and economic burden of recreating the Warsaw Pact in 21st century Europe. But that appears to be the fantasy being peddled.

Surely Russia has better things to spend their 'gas-station' money on?

So the attempt to dismember the Russian federation, as called for by EUrocrat Kaja Kallas for example, has proven to be a little more difficult than that of Yugoslavia.

But you get what you wish for.