The funniest part of the article is this bit though

There are certainly credible and cogent arguments to the contrary, such as those stating that a weakened Russia simply won’t have the wherewithal to attack NATO anytime soon, whether it wins or loses, and that Putin’s forces are clearly no match for sophisticated, well-equipped Western armies.

It kind of makes the whole article self-referential. After two years of war it's become crystal clear that NATO weapons and tactics have utterly failed against the Russian army. Yet, the article is still boldly proclaiming that Putin’s forces are clearly no match for sophisticated, well-equipped Western armies. The cognitive dissonance on display here is really amazing.