Forums / Discussion / General

You've been blueballing everyone about "leaving the site" for a while now…

whitepill:

dude is so full of conspiratorial thinking but not once blamed the Jews for it.

With all the wackos and antisemitic conspiracy theories popping up, at least the man didn't blame the Jews and didn't kill anyone else either.

Seriously speaking, it's sad and he needed serious help. Media needs to be careful in how they report these self-immolations, because there's been links between over-coverage and copycats, just like with mass-shootings.

Oh yeah, it's already been mentioned in Ukraine-Russian War entry, but the US House has passed a $95 billion foreign aid bill for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

The voting record was 311 for (210 Dems 101 Reps), 112 against (All Reps).

A black hobbyist gunsmith was sentenced from between 10 and 18 years in prison for the heinous crime of… smithing guns, because he had the misfortune of living in New York. Unfortunately, the only actual article on this case is from some website called "RedState", but the case definitely exists, it's number "IND-71520-22/001" in Kings County (better known as Brooklyn). The man's name is Dexter Taylor.

Ignoring the obvious discussion about the constitutionality of the relevant law(s), there's two interesting, and highly severe, blunders made by the judge:

1. Declaring that, because "this is New York", the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution "doesn't exist [in this courtroom]". This is obviously ridiculous and implies either a severe failing of the judge's civic education, or a willful ignorance of how the constitution works. The United States Constitution and its amendments apply everywhere within the fifty States, as well as within any incorporated territories (which currently only includes the unorganized and uninhabited Palmyra Atoll, for some reason). A judge also cannot declare the constitution, or any part of it, null and void. Otherwise, a judge could simply choose to declare that the Eighth Amendment "doesn't exist", and sentence a litterer to be drawn and quartered.

2. We aren't given as much detail about this part, but the judge apparently told the jurors that if they didn't find Mr. Taylor guilty, they would face consequences, by leading them to believe that jury nullification is illegal. It's not, but I think judges telling juries what verdict to find very well might be. It's definitely grounds for a retrial, and probably grounds for getting booted from one's post.

tl;dr: innocent black man sentenced unjustly by an insane kangaroo court that ignored rule of law and the constitution, news at 11

yea, i might be wrong on this, but i'm pretty sure the fucking judge of a court case is supposed to be impartial a.k.a unbiased

in fact, i think the only thing a judge can widely order the entire jury to do is to disregard all former and future testimony from an individual who was confirmed to be lying under oath, and i'm not even sure if that can be forced

Eh who am I kidding the constant shitstorm will continue by the afternoon

Not beating the allegations when you make posts like this.

This time it was intentional

Only this time?

But seriously, don't fan the flames if you don't like to see shit on fire.

Because the reality is that the woke shit, and the ESG stuff is only a partial problem of what's really plaguing the video game industry. I recognized the problem 10 years ago. And it was that the cost of developing a AAA tittle is going to inevitably become unsustainable. Back in the early 2000s it took a few million dollars to produce a AAA title, today it takes 20x amount to make the same product. When I graduated college in Game Art and Design, things like normal maps, metallic, roughness, etc, was relatively new. The idea of making high poly model first and creating a new low poly mesh on top of it to bake the textures into it was a relatively new concept. But I saw then that the time to produce a simple character or an environment object doubled if not quadrupled in time to make.

SO why didn't it collapse sooner?
2 reasons:
1) China money. China invested very heavily into US video game and movie industry, and that easy money paid off primarily in the mobile game sector. Roughly around 2020 – as increasing US – China tensions rose that money started to dwindle, and what started out as a Trump era anti-China policy, continued on by the Biden administration hardcore (imo, this is a good policy).
2) The biggest factor is interest rates. When interest rates are low a company like EA can borrow 60 million to develop a game that can generate 80 million in revenue. But if interest rates increase, that same return on investment is substantially lower. Like, SUPER LOW. To give you some shenanagins:

On December 30th 2020, Electronic Arts has a debt of $1.08 Billion. In March of 2021 (3 months), the debt is 1.95 Billion. For over 2 years since it's debt remained at 1.95 Billion. From 2020-2021, Activision Blizzard increased it's debt 34% from 2.6 Billion to 3.6 Billion. Similarly, Ubisoft debt in March 2020 to March 2021 went up 56%, from 1.56 Billion to 2.45 Billion.

Why is it that Larian had to lay off a sizeable chunk of their higher staff even though BG3 was a massive hit? Because of this.
interest rates are what's killing the game industry and the tech industry.
These industries literally thrived from cheap loans, and now that they can't get them, they are unable to innovate. Tech, specifically the giants, thrive on innovation. META originally was supposed to be a low key minor sub-product of Facebook, bjut because of COVID and the shift to remote work there was a huge push by investors to throw billions behind the project. But META can never achieve those expectations, and to try means borrowing tons and tons of cash with high interest rates.

We're tying the cultural war to these issues, and they have an impact, believe me. But the reality is, that technology – which games and movies have been a part of have enjoyed a super low interest fee for nearly a decade and a half, and it allowed them access to easy cash. Now that interest rates are high, and borrowing is more epensive than ever before, they cannot sustain the old model. It's collapsing.

And… unfortunately I am part of that collapse. The studio I worked for shut down last week, and the 30 people I worked with are now all unemployed.

Huh, I've actually learned something new around here. I had no idea about the debt issue, but it makes more sense than some of the other theories floating around.

Sorry to hear about your studio.

The problem with the interest rates isn't the current interest rate – we're around the median for the last few decades.

It's that fiscal policy for the last few decades in nearly every government has been to lower the interest rate at any sign of economic trouble and promising to never raise it, which encourages reliance on massive amounts of debt.

This was never sustainable. Interest rates cannot go down forever, they eventually have to go back up, and now they have.

Businesses that do not make money and sustain themselves by taking on more and more debt should fail. But the problem is by keeping debt so cheap for so long, policymakers have ensured that every company that didn't leverage themselves to the tits fell behind the ones that did.

In terms of decades, you are correct. But keep in mind the rapid expansion of technology, tech industry, and massive expansion of the gaming market, etc all coincided with the last decade and a half low interest rates. But yeah AAA is not a sustainable model as it is now. Most of the massive profits in the industry come from mobile titles. I remember reading, sometimes in 2015 I believe, that it took 400k to develop Clash of Clans (or one of those games) they made that money back in a few days.

The indie scene is alive and thriving because the expectation of AAA graphics is not there.

In terms of decades, you are correct. But keep in mind the rapid expansion of technology, tech industry, and massive expansion of the gaming market, etc all coincided with the last decade and a half low interest rates. But yeah AAA is not a sustainable model as it is now. Most of the massive profits in the industry come from mobile titles. I remember reading, sometimes in 2015 I believe, that it took 400k to develop Clash of Clans (or one of those games) they made that money back in a few days.

The indie scene is alive and thriving because the expectation of AAA graphics is not there.

Anybody here have any thoughts on how long the Ukraine war is gonna last?

Russia will win in like 2 months tops

The Tiktok thread got locked so I'll reply in here. I'm tempted to just make a new thread but I feel like that might get obnoxious, especially if there's not going to be enough discussion for it.

Anyway, here's my updated thoughts on the Tiktok ban situation. Anyway, I beg anyone who's still wanting the ban of the platform to not think about this uncritically. (I say this as someone who doesn't really use Tiktok and find the platform obnoxious)

1. One of the most common responses I've seen is something along the lines of "People caring about chinese social media spying on them but practically every other domestic social media platform does the same thing." Which I agree with but I think the way it's phrased gives too much leeway for Tiktok. Please, be cautious of posting to any and all social media, domestic or otherwise. Internet safety is more overlooked when it's probably the most important right now, especially compared to 15-20 years ago. There are even platforms that use your art or text to train AI now. I think going completely off social media is impossible for some people (with some jobs requiring some type of presence), and I don't think think most people will actually go competely off it, but at least be careful.
2. There's at least some evidence that politicians want it banned due to people supporting Palestine over Israel. Also referenced in the previous thread by a mod but now there's at least admitting to it.
3. It's likely that it won't stop at Tiktok but foreign companies in the future. This might not even stop at chinese companies.
4. This point is directed more towards people who want the ban because Tiktok's "annoying." I don't think this needs to be stated but "Tiktok" most likely won't be "truly" banned. If it gets bought, the actual mindless content won't change, and if it's banned, a US clone will take its place. I sort of said this in the previous thread but I wanted to make my point a bit more clear.

As I learn more I may update my thoughts on it.

I think it's still too early to tell unless you have a crystal ball at hand. Neither side seems to have any wish to stop the war in the foreseeable future. Most of the guesses I've seen are based on wishful thinking or plainly delusional.

I'm going to speculate that it's going to take a long time still.
Putin's political career and his legacy are tied to this conflict. In the process he also tied the fate of Russia itself to the conflict. He is willing to sacrifice everything to get a "win", of any kind, which maybe just getting Lugansk and Donetsk, and hopefully, Zoporizhia because it connects to Crimea.

And even if Putin croaks before the war is over, or retires, the reality is it's not going to end. There needs to be a realistic exit strategy for Russia but there isn't at this point. The next leadership would have to contend with exiting a war that may cause a dissolution of the Federation itself. There are a lot of Republics and Ethnic groups that are eager to have Ukraine win – because a weaker Russia means they can withdraw from it.

On the other side Ukraine is going to fight as long as it can, as long as it takes, and the rest of the world is going to support it, because Ukraine losing the war would be disastrous for the European continent and the US's world order. In fact, it would be the biggest break of a taboo over conflicts to conquer territory. If Russia wins it's going to deeply undermine the UN's prohibition of conquest for land, and in doing so a lot of countries with horrific borders (thanks post-colonialism) is going to break out into war. Russia, will, of course support them, so will China.

The US is unwilling to go in 100%, and the Biden administration is too cowardly and too myopic to see what's happening on the horizon. Europe is not yet military ready to deal with Russia. Not yet. But it's increasingly likely that eventually a NATO war with Russia will become inevitable.

And frankly, I don't particularly see anyone in the media or the political circles talking about "the day after" in Russia v Ukraine. I seen it from day one when Gaza and Israel went to war, and the Biden administration is demanding there be a plan for the "day after" there. But no one is talking a bout the day after in Ukraine v Russia. Especially if Russia loses.

What happens if Russia does begin to destabilize and dissolve? What are we going to do about all the nuclear warheads – suddenly you may find an additional 5-6 nuclear armed countries on the world stage.

What happens to the Russian rebels in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea? It would be absurd for Ukraine to want to keep them as they will inevitably create an insurgency. I am 95% certain you will see an ethnic cleansing either forced or not, because a lot of them will be viewed as collaborators of some of the worst atrocities, at best, or outright traitors at worst.

What would we do prevent revanchism that will give the next prince of Russia a carte blanche plate to start over? To conquer the weaker smaller former Republics?

What happens if Russia wins and we see a Russia that holds control over 20-25% of the entire globe's food supply, and is more than happy to use it for it's own geopolitical gain? What if Russia's success leads them to now want concessions and territory from Moldova?

Nobody is asking these questions. No one. I think it's because everyone, left-right, American, European, wants everything to go back to status quo, in every conflict. I think that's honestly the policy of the Biden administration, to reverse time to October 2016. But it's not 2016. I just don't see a vision for America's let alone the West's role in the future of the world. China has a vision for its role. Russia has a vision for its role. But we, in the West, certainly do not. Europe just seems to want to survive it's own domestic and economic crises, and the US is increasingly looking bewildered.

Nobody is asking these questions. No one. I think it's because everyone, left-right, American, European, wants everything to go back to status quo, in every conflict..

In the West, yes. Outside of that there's no shortage of people who would love to see the EU and the US taken down a notch. It's not just Russia and China.

No. And I don't blame them, necessarily.
I think, honestly, that a large segment of the post-colonial landscape felt that the borders designed by the colonial powers were not properly drawn up to represent a realistic and organic nation.

Imagine the 19th century. European powers have exerted control over 90% of the world's territory, and peoples. They fight two world wars and exhaust themselves to the point where maintaining this colonial system is unsustainable. SO instead they turn to the post colonial enterprise of drawing up the new borders of the world. Not only that, they draw up these borders sometimes on the most arbitrary lines, and then have the US enforce a global world order through it's military might to maintain a prohibition on territorial conquest. That is. These post colonial powers drew up these artificial borders and then created a prohibition on changing them on a moral, and diplomatic means.

Of course, the West's enemies take full advantage of this and challenge that notion. Not because they actually care about the organic organization of peoples, but because they seek to undermine the West. This is what the Cold War was about.

But the cold war is over, yet the specter of those arbitrary lines in the sand exists. The specter of former colonial order, like France's Françafrique still exists. We've not done anything to remedy this. And we are seeing a massive push against these arbitrary lines.

Again, I think the US and the Europeans want to return to a status quo. That status quo is increasingly becoming distant. We never resolved the fundamental conflicts that fueled the cold war. We thought we cut off the head (the USSR). But the reality is that the prohibition that we took for granted is being challenged.

And the worst part is I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

I can't disagree. The problem, I think, is that status quo of the post-colonial UN-based world system was arguably balanced around the unstable equilibrium of the Cold War nuclear-based deterrence. The collective West and the Warsaw pact could push against each other to a certain degree but never past the point of turning the Cold War hot.

With the fall of the Soviet Union the West has convinced itself of its absolute military and economic superiority for over 30 years. Anyone willing to defy their will would be destroyed by way of political isolation, economic sanctions or direct military intervention. At the end of the day neither North Korea, Iran or Iraq would be able to stand up to the US, let alone NATO. I think they're starting to lose that confidence. Neither political isolation or sanctions worked as intended against Russia and direct intervention against a nuclear power is not something to be taken lightly.

I also think a direct intervention on Ukraine has the potential of tremendously backfiring, even without the nukes. One of the most frequent comments I see from pro-Ukrainian commentators is that NATO countries are sending old equipment, things like Bradleys, M1A1 Abrams, Leopard 2A6, ATACMS and soon the F-16s, so it doesn't matter if they get destroyed because their countries of origin are keeping and building new and better stuff. Well, what happens if that new stuff doesn't perform much better? An F-16 gets shot down, nobody really would care. An F-35 gets shot down and it would potentially shake the confidence in a multi-billion dollar program meant to be the entire backbone of NATO. You might think it's impossible, and it might be. I'm no military analyst, I'm no expert, I'm just a random person typing stupid things on her laptop while watching funny cat memes in another tab, so take that as you will. I'll just end by saying that if someone told me three years ago that a Leopard 2 and an Abrams would be exhibited in Moscow as war trophies I would have laughed at them, but here we are in 2024.

What I will agree on is that uncertain times are approaching and that's terrifying.

At the risk of being overtly simplistic, one thing has become quite clear to me from the war in Ukraine: the true bloody face of the "future" that Russia and it's allies are championing.

Nothing quite discredits the "anti-impérialistes" cause as fast as waging and cheer-leading a war of imperialism, and all it's hypocrisies. All of the attempts to restart wars of conquest and troubles, as countries in South America, Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle-east suddenly prepare for land-grabs, in the event that the international order breaks down further (and this is coming from someone who has had a lot to criticize about current politics).

Personally, I find the current news-cycle less confusing than previous years, where it was all more nebulous. Now? All cards are on the table, and while the future's completely uncertain, the reality of what time we're in has become more clear.

Europe just seems to want to survive it's own domestic and economic crises, and the US is increasingly looking bewildered.

The Russians & Chinese politicians plan is to talk of delusions of empire. Personally I'd prefer an EU & US and allies more focused on survival than anything else. Botched ideas of "the end of history" and a "project for the new american century" are partially at fault for why we're in our current mess.

Flagrant disregard of international law by those who are supposed to champion it by decades of short-sighted politicians who thought they could engage in "might makes right" without consequence are haunting us now, that's the cause of the current confusion, it's not something that came out of nowhere.

If 'we' really want to put the genie back in the bottle, a lot of societies are going to have start thinking hard on what they want to represent.

No one here really knows, but I have some thoughts:

1) Russia is back on the attack on Ukraine with an offensive going on all fronts for the past week. The fog of war is in full-effect, as articles say that the Russian army is more organized than during their first major push and with Ukraine is at it's greatest peril since 2022. They are taking land. On the other hand, as time goes on the amount of territory captured in the amount of time taken is much smaller and there have been heavy Russians losses.

The previous Russian strategy after the retreat from Kharkiv seemed to be to entrench themselves while waiting for Western interest & support to dry up, so something has changed.

2) Politics in the EU are shifting. There has been talks of countries sending troops to Ukraine (other than France), and conscription has re-entered public debate. It could be nothing, or it could be politicians preparing the ground for a policy.

I'm not sure, as Macron has both a tendency of being full of hot air while also being willing to escalate measures beyond what other expect (thinking of when an aircraft carrier was deployed to the East Mediterranean in 2020 to defend Greece). Poland & Estonia on the other hand are more likely to mean it.

There's also European elections are taking place on June 9, so we'll see than if the results may change something. Or not.

Sort of wish we had users from other countries (other than Europe or the US) who'd be interested in chipping in. I can only speak for things that could effect the war from the EU.

1) Russia is back on the attack on Ukraine with an offensive going on all fronts for the past week. The fog of war is in full-effect, as articles say that the Russian army is more organized than during their first major push and with Ukraine is at it's greatest peril since 2022. They are taking land. On the other hand, as time goes on the amount of territory captured in the amount of time taken is much smaller and there have been heavy Russians losses.

The previous Russian strategy after the retreat from Kharkiv seemed to be to entrench themselves while waiting for Western interest & support to dry up, so something has changed.

It makes sense that the advance would slow down as time goes by. Ukrainian forces retreat to better defensive positions and Russia avoids overextending its forces. I think the most interesting part is how easily the Russians was able to pour into Ukraine in the first place. I've seen commentators, even pro-Ukrainians, speaking about defenses near the border being unfinished, poorly made or not built at all and blaming huge corruption issues for it.

The most common reason I see being speculated as for the change in strategy is the manpower, shell shortage and lack of air defenses on Ukraine's side. The difference is that pro-Ukrainians seem to think it's a desperate push before military aid starts pouring in and making any further advance impossible. Pro-Russians on the other hand seem to think they will be able to push into Chasiv Yar and Kharkiv as Ukrainian fronts start collapsing. The truth is likely somewhere between those two positions.

I mean it's relatively difficult to build up strong defenses on a several thousand kilometer border in a country that is effectively flat fertile land. But the real reason is corruption. Ukraine – like much of former USSR countries – have struggled deeply with corruption, and they only started fixing those issues after 2014. Unfortunately, those corruption issues still plague them. They aren't as corrupt as Russia, and far less corrupt than the Chinese, but they still have deep problems. One of the reasons Zelensky had to fire generals and such.

I wish Ukraine supporters were more honest about elements of Ukraine that needs to be addressed and contextualized rather than pretending that they aren't there.

In the latest on "it's actually about the right to choose" reps in NC are trying to ban face masks

Jesus Christ the level of performative legislating is just downright stupid at this point. What the fuck are they doing?

>"it's actually about the right to choose whether or not to X!"
>completely bans X, therefore removing all choices"

kek

imagine if women were FORCED to get abortions lmao

There goes "personal freedom" as a misused value that was quickly abandoned when inconvenient, gone like "protect the children" & "protect democracy against dictatorships".

What's even left?

Everytime a political group says “freedom” it is a grift

Breaking political e drama

At an end of his stream Nick Fuentes accidentally streamed gay porn.

The groypers are blaming the Jews hacked him.

Enjoy the comedy!

I wanna know which secret Groyper downvoted me lol, is it you my stalker? It's been a while.

"i'm not gay it's those damn jews!" i fucking can't lmao

I wish Ukraine supporters were more honest about elements of Ukraine that needs to be addressed and contextualized rather than pretending that they aren't there.

True, but I wish people were willing to be more critical of the situation in general. I just checked the article on this site. It's all the same handful of people posting links to cherrypicked pro-Ukrainian news articles or tweets and reposting the Ukrainian propaganda they seem to take at face value. You don't have to be an ardent pro-Putin supporter to acknowledge there's a lot of BS in there. Even the memes stop after the Wagner coup and it's only generic anti-Russian stuff from there. To be honest I was expecting to find more funny turtle tank memes and less of an echo-chamber.

@TheHolyEmpress

Perhaps this is a bit of a bias showing. I feel that both sides are very guilty of never allowing an inch for the other side. But I think it is more predominant on the "left" than it is on the right, and I suspect that has to do with the deep, deep, deep fear of Trump, or what they feel is a powerful far-right agenda.

I've started noticing this in 2020 with the COVID roll out. And a lot more in 2021.
You can't be critical about the way the lockdowns were rolled out because that feeds into the right wing agenda. You can't be critical about the consequences of ACAB movement because that feeds into the right wing agenda. You can't be critical about government implicitly forcing you to take a vaccine, because that feeds into the anti-vaxx crowd (which used to be far left, but now is far right). You can't point out any kind of positive outcomes of the Trump presidency because that only gives him power (Abraham Accords, for one, ironically the fast-tracking of the vaccine, another). You can't be critical of how the Biden administration handled it's foreign policy with Afghanistan, that has to be always blamed on Trump first. You can't be critical about Trans-Activism because that just feeds the anti-LGBT side.

And now you can't be critical about Ukraine because that just justifies Russia, and therefore the far right. You can't be critical about how the Biden administration is handling the current Israel/Hamas conflict because it's election year and he can't afford to lose.

But you can simultaneously say things like "Trump had some good policy initiatives, like Abraham Accords, the fast tracking of the vaccine, forcing NATO to recognize they need to contribute more (even if he did it through an assholish way), and spear-heading American acceptance of China as our real rival, but many of his policies ended up making America weaker, like abandoning our Kurdish allies, not pushing hard enough on North Korea, South Korea reconciliation, the way he spoke about other politicians, and fellow Americans."

You can, simultaneously say "the Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrific, and is of genocidal intent, and we need to support Ukraine fully because failure to do so would greatly undermine the world order, and American and European power and influence. But we also need to be critical about how Ukraine handles the weapons we give them, we can be critical about the real presence of questionable militia groups like Azov, and we need to make sure that the American tax dollars are being spent as efficiently as possible".

You can, simultaneously say "the way Lockdowns were done in the US have had long lasting psychological and economic damage that we are still feeling today, especially in the technological industries, and putting incredible government pressure, akin to force, for people to take a vaccine that the majority of people did not need to take was borderline authoritarian, but the anti-Vaxx crowd has been consistently wrong about the vaccine will do to you (microchips and shit).

How did we come to the point w here we are so desperate to not give an inch, knowing that we are wrong, just so the other side can't win?

Like the desperation of every election being "this one is the most important election ever™" has led people to never, ever, be critical

It feels like it's almost impossible to have a nuanced debate on the internet anymore which is why I barely even bother, I'm surprised you still have the patience when almost no one here is interested in serious discussion. I also noticed there is generally more purity spiralling on the left than on the right.

But what if polarization and division is the goal of the system and it benefits from it?

You know, I was thinking of saying something, but the last response did it.

I've noticed this issue and irony is I feel the same, but in the reverse sense. If you all want to circlejerk each other and cry woe is me, be my guest, but the lack of self-reflection is galling.

The helicopter carrying the Iranians President crashed in East Azerbaijan.

Just as Shani Louk was having her funeral.

How many people died there?

Hopefully none.

Would hate to start another war in the region.

@Chewybunny:

While I think it goes further than the left vs. right debate that's particularly prominent in the US political climate, tribalism has to play a pretty big part on this. Wanting to pick sides is human nature and the Internet has played a pretty big role in polarization and drowning out nuanced discussion in favor of simplified narratives. It makes sense that for many of them criticizing Ukraine in any way means tacitly supporting Russia, which in turn means supporting authoritarianism and rejecting the existing rules-based world order. Even if that means supporting false narratives or ignoring problems existing deeply within Ukraine. At least to me it shows that a disturbing amount of people would rather believe comfortable lies rather than confront unpleasant truths.

For instance, I think western governments should start preparing for the real possibility that it might be necessary to negotiate with Russia to stop the war. Unless something very significant happens soon the next few months will be increasingly bloody for Ukraine and there's no sign it will stop after that, let alone that the tide will be reversed. All signs seem to me like it's going to be a long, brutal attrition grind. It's easy for the US, Germany or Britain to say "we'll keep sending more weapons so the invaders are stopped at any cost" when they are not the ones paying in material damage and, most importantly, human lives.

Even Russia "winning" a quagmire is absolutely in favor of the Western Powers, and there is absolutely no reason why they would lend a single hand to one of their most hated enemies.

Maybe. I'm not so sure about it now. Ukraine has a pretty tough road ahead and I just don't see a clear way out. The West is banking more on Russia collapsing on itself than any real strategy. The sanctions didn't work as expected. Every time they said they were running out of materiel or men it turned out to be overly optimistic or pure propaganda. I'm pretty skeptical that the West will intervene if Ukraine can't hold anymore, with the US keeping its eyes on China and European forces being a far cry from what they were back in the 80s and needing years to get back in shape. I guess time will tell, but I have no reasons to be optimistic.

Frankly, a "victory" for either side would be pyrrhic and wrought with harsh, long-term consequences. Ukraine will struggle to recuperate its severe losses, and will be open to another attack by Russia. Joining NATO would certainly mitigate this problem, but losing so many people to war never has good effects on a society. Russia would face similar, but less severe, consequences from its own losses, and would also struggle with occupation; not just in whatever territories it annexes (likely those it already declared it has) but in more tumultuous home regions as well.

In any case, any of these problems would be made considerably worse by their mutual issues of corruption and autocracy.