I will simply note that the United States and its willing NATO vassals have deliberately raised the stakes of this conflict such that Russia will very likely now feel compelled to make a momentous decision in deference to the power of perception and narrative.
The empire has played the "ace up its sleeve" in Ukraine.
Over the past several months they methodically constructed a modest strike force of hoarded NATO weaponry and a briefly trained new cadre of Ukrainian soldiers – most of them fresh conscripts.
In addition to these new Ukrainian brigades, they also assembled multiple brigades of NATO troops – “foreign volunteers” – to serve as shock troops for an envisioned “counter-offensive”. The total count of these NATO soldiers is unknown, but is likely at least 3000 - 5000.
I'm persuaded the Russians were clearly cognizant of this build-up. They also clearly provided an irresistibly tempting target for the assembled force, and deliberately created a vacuum into which it would be permitted to advance. What they plan to do next remains to be seen.
BBC.com quotes you as saying that if support for Ukraine is strong the crisis will be shorter. Hmmm? I guess that might depend on what you mean by “support for Ukraine?” If by “support for Ukraine,” you mean the West continuing to supply arms to the Kiev government’s armies, I fear you may be tragically mistaken. Throwing fuel, in the form of armaments, into a firefight, has never worked to shorten a war in the past, and it won’t work now, particularly because, in this case, most of the fuel is (a) being thrown into the fire from Washington DC, which is at a relatively safe distance from the conflagration, and (b) because the “fuel throwers” have already declared an interest in the war going on for as long as possible.