We have to push <CTRL>-<ALT>-<DELETE> here and try to break the running loop we're in. There's nothing wrong with trying to find other avenues to up Russia's pain. That's all I'm saying.

Then you could say that, instead of the other things that you do say. No one's "sentencing" Ukraine to anything.

I got zero takers. The board definitely doesn't want to go there.

Of course not. And it sounds like you don't, either. Neither "the board" nor you are open to the idea of NATO committing troops to the fight - or at least enough to actually change battlefield conditions. I'm not, either. There's a wide enough path to victory for Ukraine without running the risk of WWIII.

It might help "break the running loop" if you framed this issue as something that you and the board agreed on, rather than framing it as if the board was doing something improper by not "wanting to go there." You don't want to go there either.

This is assuming that an outside actor doesn't step in with significant debt relief. As we've said, the Chinese have a vested interest in as much chaos as they can sow worldwide.

I think this fundamentally misreads China. China tends to use orderly methods to advance their interest, not chaotic interests. The old Soviet Union thrived on chaotic situations in the third world, and was keen to foster rebellions and uprisings and coups and insurgencies and failed states and so on. China hasn't really run that playbook. They are far more likely to use institutions and deals and orderly connections in their non-military dealings - and while they'll use or threaten force, they are very precise and not chaotic. Their orientation in international relations seems to show a real preference for stability and predictability, not sowing chaos across the globe. They do not want to present themselves as a nation that is in the business of upsetting the global applecart - anywhere. They see themselves as the likely winners of a worldwide system that is clean and orderly and stable, rather than the ones who can dance in chaos.

Unlike NATO, China has extended virtually no support to Russia thus far. Oh, sure - they're willing to buy their oil and other natural resources. They're more than happy to sell them the same dual-use stuff they're selling everyone else (including Ukraine), which is used for all kinds of military purposes as well. But there are some really firm limits. They're not giving Russia tanks or planes (and certainly not divisions). They're officially neutral on the conflict. They haven't officially recognized any of Russia's other territorial acquisitions, either.

So, no - I think it is highly unlikely that China rides to Russia's rescue once they run out of money. If anything, if it looks like Russia's reaching the end of its rope, I think it's far more likely that China leans on Russia (quietly and invisibly) to end the conflict, rather than give them the resources to continue. They're not going to stop Russia from fighting itself to exhaustion. You're right in pointing out that China definitely gets some benefits from that. But they're not going to put their own necks on the line by choosing a side here, just as they have studiously avoided doing so far.