It’s absolutely grim, no doubt about it.
But I’m not sure anyone is underestimating the need to end the war, the question is how can it end?
If we don’t support Ukraine, they lose their country. If we force them into negotiating they probably lose around 1/5 of their country and leave themselves (and other nations) open to future attacks. If we support them then they can probably win, but will Putin accept that?
It’s not a nice or comfortable situation, but the world should have stood up to Russia years ago, the fact we didn’t has lead to this awful situation as Putin believed the West/EU/NATO was decadent, divided and weak. How much Ukrainian territory should be given away to ensure maybe a few years peace? How do you deal with a nuclear bully? Difficult questions with no simple answers, but appeasement and concessions don’t seem to be the correct way to go whilst a united front has been a wake up call for Russia, even if Putin has his head in the sand.
Like Mark Galeotti states: “Putin is a rational actor” - yes he’s surrounded by his echo chamber, but I don’t think he has a death wish, I don’t think his cabal do either. Here’s hoping.
In general, through life, I have considered myself a pacifist by and large. Anti-war ... mostly. But there are exceptions and this is one of them. Putin had to be stopped and, thanks to Ukraine, his larger plans to re-draw the map are in tatters. I agree that he should have been stopped much earlier. There was too much appeasement (and downright "support" from some areas .... hello Germany). But we are where we are now and we have learned that Russia is not the great military fighting force that people had presumed. They were badly led, badly equipped and much less motivated than Ukraine. But what they are, still, is a nuclear force. Most of their nuclear arsenal is in poor shape, but some of it won't be (estimated 750 maintained and functioning.... but only 1/3 of those long rainge nukes). It's still enough.
But he is fully aware of what happens if he uses nukes, even battlefield nukes.
When this thread started Russia was at a crux point and was considering 3 options.
1) Withdrawal/peace (at the behest of Xi, Modi and Erdogan). The signs were that Putin was considering this but, after the capitulation of his forces last week and the incursion and missile strikes around Rostov and Belgorod, the more hawkish of his close circle/generals seem to have ruled that out. It would have meant surrender, effectively and the end of their days.
2) Mobilisation. Putin had always avoided this option, which is why it was a Special Military Operation, rather than war. He knew that mobilising ethnic Russians in Moscow and St. petersberg would be politically difficult and that conscription from the various Stans might lead to civil wars and the break up of Russia.
3) Nukes. Given that he knows that this really would be the end, so far he has avoided it (yet continued to threaten, as he has throughout the conflict). The other problem is that any small scale nuclear strikes in Ukraine are hazardous for his own troops/people. The other problem is the anticipated failure rate of the missiles ... it's a gamble whether they reach their intended target, or drop on Russian territory.
So they went with mobilisation. Given that these raw recruits are being sent to the front line with no training and inadequate weaponry, this is only going to buy time and cost many unnecessary lives. But we already know that Putin's cabal have a callous disregard for their own soldiers.
NATO now has approx 300,000 troops along its Eastern boundary plus 150,000 Swedes and Fins. The Russian subs are getting pinged regularly ... as a message. The huge lend/lease shipments are on their way. If NATO enters the war, I think it will be over quickly. Let's just hope Putin and his generals prefer option 1 to option 3 in the end.