Given they're trying to expand NATO and intentionally provoke a conflict to weaken an adversary through attrition. They need to be backed into a corner and then the world can leave them alone to rot and turn their violence inward. So it's more like a rabid dog running around and biting people through a street then snarling and getting into attack stance whenever someone tries to corner it to alleviate the danger. They knowingly chose a conflict with a nuclear power, a former superpower because they thought it would be easy. It's their problem that their planners are so inept they never considered that they could lose, Russia could stand, and they'd look bad and apparently now that it's possible it's unacceptable to them to which we and Russia can only say "tough shit, fuck around and find out".

I maintain though Russia needs to figure out some sort of strategic big "fuck off" move to hit back against the west in a way that makes it minimally likely compared to other options that they escalate to direct war or nukes and which dissuades them strongly. I really do say give Ansar Allah anti-ship missiles and help them sink a large US navy ship, cost the US some billions and humiliate them and most importantly show them they can't escalate without a cost, that the Russians have the resolve to hit back and they need to not do so because it isn't safe or rational. Not their fault the US's missiles suck and can't hit Russia 90% of the time while Russia's can get through. Because if they don't, no amount of rhetoric or saber-rattling is going to dissuade the west from continuing to escalate to a direct conflict as they've seen so far such rhetoric doesn't amount to actual consequences for the west so why wouldn't they continue trying to boil the frog one slow escalation at a time?

IMO given the west's resistance to losing, their likelihood of escalating to try and prevent that loss and all the other factors, Russia has a few options assuming Trump doesn't de-escalate and cut off Ukraine or negotiate something amenable to Russia (we can always hope):

1. Dissuade them with concrete action, a fuck-off type action. The danger here is this could lead to escalation of course. The danger of not doing it, is escalation will certainly happen but perhaps in a more controlled fashion though if Ukrainian lines shatter all bets may be off and the west might go all in anyways and dare Russia to make good on its nuclear threat.

2. Do nothing, just let the west continue up the escalation ladder and hope Russia can break Ukraine and defeat them without the west doing more than these types of things. I personally think this only emboldens them and encourages the dangerous idea among their planners that they can do anything including pouring NATO troops into Ukraine to freeze the conflict and a score a win through militarizing most of Ukraine for NATO as well as plundering it through the purchases Blackrock and the like have made which is a notched victory for the capitalists and their investments and not just the empire which benefits them in a more round-about way. But I could be wrong, they could end up doing nothing. I just know Europe has a few too many fanatical believers in "the garden" who are willing to self-immolate for my comfort. Given Europe can't go back to cheap Russian energy which they somewhat want without a Russian loss and humiliation to justify them dropping sanctions and resuming trade.

Another issue is time seems to give the west resolve. They do at times seem somewhat nervous, doing toe-dipping into the pool like one country at a time escalating or sending up flares about threatening actions they could take to see the Russian reaction. But this is merely a process that takes time and the more time they have the more they salami-slice or to revisit the pool metaphor, the deeper they dare wade in. Europe in particular I think has many states that want to go all in, who have destroyed their economies already with this war and think basically they're in for a penny they're in for a pound and they either win or destroyed themselves for nothing (but the benefit of the US which is not a pill any of those liberals want to even contemplate).

3. Slow the pace of the war intentionally. Don't make attempts to completely break Ukrainian lines or push a break-through to Kiev, instead just grind down the front to remove the threat somewhat but don't move it anywhere beyond the regions that voted to join Russia. Allow the west to feel they can wind the war down gradually like all their other losses in places like Vietnam and hope with time they accept the loss because it looks less bad if Ukraine lasts another 3 years say and their populations move on and some narrative is crafted to allow them to lose gracefully. The problem with this is they'll still be dealing with attacks using western systems behind the lines all the while and of course doing this accepts the Ukrainians continuing to feed even more of their people into the meat grinder to die for the west. It also has the issue of giving the west more time in which they may decide upon more and more gradual escalations including troops so there's no guarantee this plan would work and could actually put the Russian armed forces in a worse position if they do end up in any kind of conflict with NATO.

Another issue is the west may not be open to continuing the conflict that long because it interferes with their time-table for attacking China. Maybe the US will let Europe handle it and go off on its own and use its Asian vassals plus Australia to confront China and if they do I worry with both wars burning and the US updating nuclear policy to "neutralize" Russia + China + DPRK at once that they might take the opportunity to settle all the scores at once with first strike sneak decapitating attacks via missile subs/launches from deranged Baltic countries followed up by the massive larger salvo of total suppression and destruction.

Which is why I really want to see this loss firmly notched in the west's belt and the whole thing behind us by next year as I think that kind of humbling may be enough to shake some sense into enough western planners to save the world from wide use of nuclear weapons.

I mean, what would the UK do if they got hit by a Russian missile? Can they even fight a war with Russia? Would the US care?

Yeah, I think the risk is too high to the Russian people. Launching a missile at that distance opens up all of Russia for retaliation from a large number of USA bases and naval launch systems. Further, I'm not sure it's possible to determine if such a missile is nuclear tipped or not, possibly triggering a whole mess of MAD protocols.

I think, like Ho, bin Laden, and Xi, Putin is actively engaged in bleeding the empire out and it's presently working with minimal risk to the Russian and Chinese people. I think the continued expansion of China economically and maintaining and expanding the quagmires that the empire is in will lead to greater results in the near term, especially since doing so will continue to increase unrest in the West, whereas a direct attack would likely galvanized the population.

Better to let the empire continue to fight smaller battles on multiple fronts far away from home. At least this is what it seems like is happening