We are all aware of the plans of the Davos set regarding Ukraine. They have now stated them publicly, and for once their pronouncements are an accurate reflection of their goal: bleeding Russia militarily and economically so that the Russian government (read Putin) falls. The unspoken part - though nobody is unaware of this - is that the Davos crew then figures they will enter Russia and rebuild (behind whichever puppet they install), giving themselves access to the profits that have been denied to them for the resources of the country.
Again, the goal is not news. It is publicly announced and fits with the limited view we have of what's happening on the ground.
What is much less clear is the effectiveness of the actions they have taken to bring about their goal.
Russia is not transparent, so it is not an easy matter to see the effects on Russian society or the links between average Russians and their government.
Given the "Meh..." attitude, however, of the governments of China and India toward cutting off trade with Russia for their raw resources, the effect of the west "cutting off" Russia from the world is questionable. Those two markets alone provide a lot of cushion for Russia to be able to weather the storm coming their way from Western Europe and the US.
Meanwhile, there are rumblings from within Western Europe that the costs to the EU countries are not being easily absorbed. Orban is leading the charge, but there is pain in several countries. Although the US would like to pretend their "silent treatment" of ostracizing Russia is a perfect wet blanket over the Russian perspective, Macron is still talking directly to Putin and refuses to accept the United States simpleminded "pretend they don't exist" attitude to Russia's diplomats. The greater the pain becomes, the more pressure leaders in Western Europe feel to re-examine the absolutist approach in which they are currently engaged.
The Davos set pretends confidence that they are capable of absorbing the costs of the global economic disruption caused by the conflict more readily than can the Russian regime.
Whether they actually can absorb those costs without social unrest destroying their ability to control their own populations is the motivation behind this post.
Who will crack first? The simple answer "Well, Russia of course!" seems far less sure than the architects of this planning want us to believe.
This is a tea-leaves question. How do you all read them?