I don't know what media you're consuming, but the mainstream consensus was

1) Contrary to what US intel is saying, Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine

and then it became:

2) Kyiv was expected to fall within a week

These two events, in rapid succession, gave a bunch of people expectation whiplash. I'm not an expert, but it seems like they are in for a very bloody stalemate.

> Maybe Uncle Sam is getting neutered? We all ought to consider the possibility.

The US has strengthened its alliance with the (1st? 2nd?) largest economic bloc (The EU). Meanwhile, China itself has put itself in an awkward position with western Europe.

Personally, I wouldn't consider zerohedge a reputable outlet as even its own former staffers claim they are instructed to spin every article to suit the political views of its founder. [1]

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking...

Do you really have trouble of deciding who is closer to truth given the imagery that comes out of places that Russians occupy and occupied? Does any of it look to you as attempting to avoid civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure?

And why would you believe Ukraine defensive capabilities are running out given all the weapons that flow into it from outside. Don't you think if they were running out of fuel they'd just ask and get as much as they need? NLAWs and Switchblades are still a tad more expensive than gas.

China, who refused to call it an "invasion"? Yeah, they tell the west to "avoid unfounded accusations" about Bucha. So if you don't listen to evidence from places like Bucha, then Russia is "making an extraordinary effort to avoid civilian casualties".

Is western media biased? Yes. But so is China. They're biased very heavily on the side of not having to condemn Russia. (They're also biased on the side of the invasion going well. If Russia can't do this, it calls into question China's ability to take Taiwan.)

In fact, from where I sit (also biased), western media is more willing to tell the truth than China is.

From what I heard China clearly calls it a war on their public TV, indicates that it's perpetrated by Russia and even shows graphic imagery of war crimes Russia commits.

Despite what USA is telling on every occasion about China to get it somehow involved in this conflict, China appears like they have no horse in this game and calls a spade a spade better than Vatican does without trumping up the narrative to global conflict level. Besides I think China is way more preoccupied with internal matters like covid outbreaks to be able to really nake any strong effort to profit from this conflict.

India is way more pro-russian at the moment, given that the west was very unwelcoming to Indian ambitions and it was Russia who had their back.

this is a hodgepodge of tough-guy "realist" contrarianism. most of your statements do not connect into a thesis except maybe an impressionistic summary would be "since Russia plays chess, US is screwed."

this is just hyper-masculine posturing - because the US seems soft, optically, and yet we are somehow simultaneously hegemons, we are both reponsible for the war and also doomed to lose.

China is choosing a stance of non-neutrality. They seem to think that destabilizing all the regions outside of China is somehow going to help, or that a weaker Western bloc is somehow to their advantage. I obviously can only speculate but that is how it looks to me. I think it is a major error, because I think we could do better by repatching globalism and trying to de-fang nationalism, instead of going back to the dark ages and hoping to simply out-survive the other losers of global war.