The war seems to be turning into a war of attrition. The Russians will have an advantage here, since they have more people and can destroy Ukrainian infrastructure and interdict their supply lines at will (both of which Russia SHOULD have done at the beginning!). They should also have adapted to Ukrainian tactics by now, and the dumber commanders will have been replaced through Darwinian-like selection. But they have already taken huge losses in equipment and trained personnel and Russian industry can't replace their equipment losses as quickly as China could.

I'm surprised Putin went in at the time that he did with the military he had. As Canis said, he is neither stupid nor crazy, I wonder if there was some sense of urgency behind his reasoning? I thought the initial Kiev offensive might have been a very large feint with the real objective the Donbas and coast, but later on that didn't seem to be the case.

Was the Battalian Tactical Group concept not as good as the old Soviet system, or was it just not finished implementing yet?

I still do not understand the Russian performance, or lack of it, at the beginning of the invasion. Did they somehow expect the Ukrainians not to fight? The Russian military did not do that badly in Syria despite the long supply lines, won against Georgia, and stomped Chechnya so hard that the Chechens are now fighting on behalf of Mother Russia! Even without NATO intelligence and weapons Ukraine was stronger than any of these prior opponents, but Russia still held every advantage.

What is the most ideal outcome for China? A Russian defeat would, as Swoosh said, open Central Asia to the US which would be an intolerable disaster. On the other hand it benefits China for Ukraine to survive with at least one port, such as Odessa, to ship out grain.