[TrumpCard]

When the invasion started, the west instituted economic sanctions on Russia. Many at the time said "sanctions won't do anything," despite being told sanctions wouldn't have an impact right away, but they would ultimately hinder Russia's ability to wage war. 

Today I am reading about:

1. The fact Ukraine now has more tanks than Russia due to donations from other countries and the obliteration of Russian tanks by drones, Javelins, and NLAWs.

2. The U.S. and France are donating dozens of howitzers and nearly 150k artillery shells (!!!!) 

3. Russian factory that produces surface to air missiles had to shut down due to sanctions.

I don't see how Russia can prevail with the industrial might of the west and fighting vigilance of Ukraine coming together as they are.

I think this is the reason you're seeing speculation on this message board about the circumstances under which Russia could deter NATO from continuing to provide military aid.  Namely, that's the only realistic scenario under which Russia would have a reasonable chance to annex all of Ukraine.  Even then, Russia might well have some difficulty, as reflected by Ukraine's success in repelling the attack on Kyiv.  But Russia has 3x the population and 10x the GDP of Ukraine, so Russia potentially would have the ability to marshall sufficient troops and resources to achieve its goal.  

As you said, however, Russia's chance of prevailing to that extent seems extremely small if NATO continues to put its finger on the scale.  Assuming NATO's current resolve continues, I would think that a stalemate is the best Russia can hope to achieve.  That's still a bad outcome for millions of Ukrainians, but it's likely one that would allow the non-occupied portions of Ukraine to continue as a functioning, democratic, and independent state, which is the last thing Russia wants on its border.

[TrumpCard]

When the invasion started, the west instituted economic sanctions on Russia. Many at the time said "sanctions won't do anything," despite being told sanctions wouldn't have an impact right away, but they would ultimately hinder Russia's ability to wage war. 

Today I am reading about:

1. The fact Ukraine now has more tanks than Russia due to donations from other countries and the obliteration of Russian tanks by drones, Javelins, and NLAWs.

2. The U.S. and France are donating dozens of howitzers and nearly 150k artillery shells (!!!!) 

3. Russian factory that produces surface to air missiles had to shut down due to sanctions.

I don't see how Russia can prevail with the industrial might of the west and fighting vigilance of Ukraine coming together as they are.

I think this is the reason you're seeing speculation on this message board about the circumstances under which Russia could deter NATO from continuing to provide military aid.  Namely, that's the only realistic scenario under which Russia would have a reasonable chance to annex all of Ukraine.  Even then, Russia might well have some difficulty, as reflected by Ukraine's success in repelling the attack on Kyiv.  But Russia has 3x the population and 10x the GDP of Ukraine, so Russia potentially would have the ability to marshall sufficient troops and resources to achieve its goal.  

As you said, however, Russia's chance of prevailing to that extent seems extremely small if NATO continues to put its finger on the scale.  Assuming NATO's current resolve continues, I would think that a stalemate is the best Russia can hope to achieve.  That's still a bad outcome for millions of Ukrainians, but it's likely one that would allow the non-occupied portions of Ukraine to continue as a functioning, democratic, and independent state, which is the last thing Russia wants on its border.