Russia - threadbanned users in OP

A bit early to say if the 'stream' of weapons will end. The west knows that it is in its own interest to have a Ukrainian win.

Foreign fighters don't make up much of the Ukrainian military.

Ukraine has only lost around 10% to 15% of it's foreign supplied equipment, obviously there is constant attrition, but they are increasingly manufacturing equipment whether it's on their own or in conjunction with other countries (e.g. the new Rheinmetall plant).

Russia's economy is experiencing a bit of a "bounce back", but they are still in a considerably worse situation than if they hadn't have invaded, they've lost their biggest energy customers and permanently burnt many bridges.

I do see financial/support/arms aid possibly being impacted from international "war fatigue", but drying up will take quite awhile. Ukraine has just had 1.3 billion pledge this week from Germany and more supplies from the US. There's also significantly more appetite to seize the hundreds of billions of frozen Russian assets and use them to help Ukraine.

What the West seems to primarily want is to make sure Russia doesn't win. This is not the same as wanting Ukrainian victory.

Look at the way Scholz uses language, and Germany is now the biggest European supplier of weapons to Ukraine. It's always "Russia must not be allowed win this war", as opposed to "Russia must lose this war". Subtle but important difference.

A victory for Ukraine ending his political career will be a victory I think he and any sane democratic loving person will be very happy to achieve.

What is this entity called "the West" and why its interest in a Ukrainian win? In the context you use it i.e "stream of weapons", "the West" is a synonym for NATO and the military industrial complex and what you are doing is feeding Russian propaganda claims that NATO is a threat to their existence. A Russian defeat does not bring an end to the war, it opens a vista like the final fall of the Ottoman empire, this time the Turkish leadership will seize their opportunity in the Middle East and more refugees will flee to Europe, where more of the population is becoming hostile to immigration causing more destabilisation in European governments. The refugees will also be coming out of Southern and Caucasus regions of Russia which will be undergoing a vicious civil war. Given Russia's primary activity as a commodities suppler to the world, then continued disruption to global supply lines will be a factor which create more consequences. No doubt Ukraine will want compensation to redress the damage done, what's left of Russia won't be paying.

Do you want to see it happen?

What do you propose russia should do to achieve your aim?

2 of the 3 outcomes you propose aren't peaceful outcomes as far as I can tell. Is your outcome #3 peaceful? This 'new world order' sure doesn't seem like it'll be peaceful. Does that 'new world order' bring peace to all the other conflicts in the world? Yemen/Ethiopia/Sub-Saharan Africa/...

Same. Dipped in expecting news but alas....

I doubt your point about the refugees and Europe in event Russia suffers a defeat serious enough it results in Putin being ousted or something.

Russia is already working overtime to destabilise the EU with refugees, Putin's best buddy Lukashenko was doing the same on the Polish border for years and now its kicking into gear on other borders (Finland).

Also Putin bombed the crap out of Syria, helped create the 2016 migrant crisis in Europe related to the war in that country, impacts of that are felt in politics in the EU to this day I think.

Russia is trying very hard to destroy Ukraine's agricultural production to deprive it of export earnings and wreck its economy. That will increase food prices around the world...more refugees to Europe.

A collapse of Putin's evil...erm..."regime" and a period where Russia turns inward working out what comes next will help reduce migrant pressures on Europe & the EU IMO.

Also noone who has a functioning brain should care about the Russian propaganda or what the "regime" thinks of us in the "West". We should be well past that.

Don't get the idea that these behaviors don't happen in the West. Western governments are not in your face thugs like the Russian ruling class are. Western governments are much more subtle about how they go about invading other countries, such as bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq and Libya (R2P) come to mind. When Western governments want to go to war they don't ask you or me, they find a law to enable them, it's all legal and above board.

We don't use fascism (state directed capitalism) anymore, we call it public/private partnership. The taxpayer gets put on the hook for corporate subsidies and bailouts, the politicians get paid off in book sales, speaking engagements and corporate directorships, jobs for the relatives or get rich from insider trading benefiting from the laws they pass or grants they allocate. All legal.

We don't assassinate journalists, we cancel and memory hole them or we appoint them to state quangos.

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn described this doctrine of legalism in 1978, there is other stiff in that speech relevant to the conflict today.

Western governments tolerated Russia, and sought a legal means to resolve the conflict and importantly keep oil & gas flowing.

This is from 2016: THE WEST’S RESPONSE TO THE UKRAINE CONFLICT - A TRANSATLANTIC SUCCESS STORY

In the end it was just a stalling tactic and pax Merkel dissipated with her departure.

A reason can always be found to go to war, Western governments go through legal channels. In Russia, the Tsars directive becomes law, it's always been that way. Ordinary Russians too expect that the law will protect them, however, when it some to the special military operation, the laws that are meant protect them from state power are turned on them.

Peaceful outcome in a war? That's definitely an oxymoron.

Also, the "West" doesn't tolerate Russia any more - things changed a bit in 2022 when they launched a full-scale war. That's always where the tankie rhetoric fails.. it's not what about Afghanistan, what about Iraq, what about gas, what about Crimea, what about NATO expansion - it's what about Putin's invasion.

President Putin, can indeed turn around, declare victory and end the war today and he must. His fate and those of the siloviki protecting him are tied to the outcome of the war and defeat does not look like Khrushchev style retirement to a luxury dacha in the Valdai hills. Too many Russian men dead and a demographic crisis, defeat means a power vacuum with a lot of angry combat veterans in the country, available to hire.

Realistically, Putin and his allies will likely see 2024 as make or break, they know the Ukrainian front lines are at breaking point, they know the West is in an election cycle. The aim for this Winter will be to break the Ukrainian front lines and wreck the countries infrastructure, then move to take the remaining parts of the oblasts they hold and dictate terms to Ukraine.

Ukraine does not have the men to sacrifice, holding out against constant meat-wave attacks which are making incremental gains. The Russian leadership are counting on taking Avdiivka this Winter, likely after the mud freezes, the Russian command has to report victories before the March "election".

To get back to scenario 1: Iran's game is likely to try split the Abraham accords agreement and get its nuclear program complete. Instability in the Middle East has a higher rank in the politics of USA, China and Europe than Ukraine does. The United States is moving into an election cycle, where providing support to Ukraine is a contentious issue. Historically there always has been political opposition in the USA to foreign intervention, for context pre-1941 (Pearl Harbour), most Americans did not want their country involved in the war. American government debt has reached levels that primary dealers cannot process and China is offloading American debt facing and economic crisis of it's own. The US election voting and counting must also be seen as fair and accountable, both sides like to game the system, if this does not happen political disruption is guaranteed. The 2024 US presidential is likely to be a 3 horse race + house elections as well. 2024 also sees European parliament elections, while these don't carry the same weight as the US elections, they will likely precipitate change in the political organisation of the member countries. Should the Middle East conflict expand and Avdiivka fall, combined with the expected Winter infrastructure attacks from the Russians, the Ukrainian government and army will face a crisis of confidence.