[zz0rr]

"...it is a risky business for a senior politician to put on public record an estimate of future events which, if wide of the mark, would provide ammunition to his adversaries. Similarly, a President who announces specific policy goals affords the public a measure of his failure if he falls short of his hopes. Hence it is common practice for officials to define foreign policy goals in the broad generalities of peace, prosperity, cooperation, and good will—unimpeachable as ideals but of little use in determining the specific objective we are likely to pursue and the time, place, and intensity of our efforts"

Maxwell Taylor quoted here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA486290.pdf

the problem you're alluding to isn't new: political leaders aren't likely to make the clear statement of aims you want them to make (see the quote). You should consider the fact that they might not make a clear statement, but 100% could still could be the goal.

My view is that the original ground scheme of maneuver (a strike at kyiv) points to a goal of replacing the ukrainian government with a russian puppet government, essentially a "100%" or unlimited war aim.

[ailef]

I agree that it may be the goal. We just can't know it.

But in the post I was replying to it was stated as a certainty rather than a possibility.