The Cold War ended with the fall of the Soviet Union, and a new Cold War with Russia started during the late 1990s, around the time of the NATO-Yugoslavia war.

The Russians had some successes in asymmetric warfare, but they can't 'win' outright on the ground, and peace would probably decimate their economy.

From the WSJ a few days ago:

For Russia’s Economy, Peace Poses a Threat

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/russia-war-economy-ukraine-...

Ukraine was literally part of the USSR at the start of the cold war, and a satellite state following the breakup.

It seems like this is a low point for Russia - a protracted hot war on what was previously its own turf.

> It seems like this is a low point for Russia - a protracted hot war on what was previously its own turf.

That kind of “low point” is most of the history of the independent Russian Federation, given the first (1994-1996) and second (1999-2009) Chechen wars and the North Caucasus insurgency (2009-2017).

I dont disagree. The cold war has not gone well for the USSR and Russia. Thats why I think it is absurd to say it is winning.

There is this idea that the breakup of Russia and Ukraine was bloodless in 1991, but that a military response was inevitable from the petulant displeased Russian state. We managed to delay the fight, but it was kind of inevitable.

I don't think that is true at all, especially if the "we" is the west. This strikes me as some sort of savior complex.

How has NATO delayed bloodshed in Ukraine between 1991 and 2022?

At first, Ukraine stayed firmly rooted in Russia's economical orbit. It's the slow inevitable lean towards Western Europe that enraged Russia.

NATO had nothing to do with it. It's economical.

nobody wins in war

In war, there are no winners, only widows.

That doesn't match up with history or reality. Hard to argue that nobody benefits from war, and that there are winners and losers.

One of the surprising thing here is how much the European and American media managed to convince Ukrainians that they are 100% on their side.

Let's play a realpolitik change of perspective, and assume that both the Europeans and the Americans wanted to weaken and grind down Russia's military and economy for some years to come in a strategic move without putting any "boots on the ground", well not their own boots at least, but using Ukrainian "boots". Well, I posit they would use Ukraine in the exact shape they did it over the last 4 years or so. Nothing more or less. I believe Biden admin expected a repeat of 2014, quick and easy take-over and Zelensky gets to run away on an offered ride. But he didn't, that was surprising but the Americans didn't hesitate and decided to use that "bravery" for their goals as well. Sure, they may have also saved Ukraine but I don't think their actions since indicate they really cared about Ukraine per se, that was a secondary propaganda spin, they just saw a chance for a nice proxy war with Russia and they got it.

How do you know who convinced Ukrainians about anything? That Ukrainians at any point were convinced about that?