Of course they do. To China, Russia is a cheap mafia-owned gas station. It can no longer provide any real business opportunities thanks to sanctions; see how the Russian part of Belt and Road got shut down and everything moved south to Kazakhstan.
Long term, Russia used to be a strategic problem to China, as its huge, aggressive direct neighbor. This problem has now been solved, but helping Russia develop would risk it becoming a threat again in a generation or two.
You're missing that the worst thing that could happen to China is a Russian collapse.
China wants Ukraine to end like Afghanistan: an embarrassing and gradual defeat of the US/West - leaving behind billions in cutting edge military hardware - after a decade of being financially and militarily drained, while having nothing to show for it. Russia is the Taliban that can make that possible, and while you don't necessarily want them to be too powerful, you definitely don't want them to just collapse.
Not to mention the US will get even more ideas if they "win" in Ukraine. From the Chinese perspective (and the perspective of much of the world), Russia is currently the anchor on US imperialist aspirations.
The real big loss for China, is Germany, who has chosen to obliterate its purchasing power as part of this war. That's the loss of a huge trading partner and quite unfortunate.
In reality Ukraine has become Afghanistan for Russia. Embarrassing military defeat? Check. Leaving behind billions in hardware? Check. Financially and militarily drained? Check. All things that have already happened to Russia.
Conversely other than expendable munitions hardly any of the Western capital equipment in Ukraine like M777, Caesar, MLRS, HIMARS and air defence vehicles seem to have been lost. Even if they were, the only reason those things existed is to fight Russia anyway, job done. None of them are particularly relevant to a conflict with China. That's why when the Marine Corps pivoted to focusing on the Pacific theatre they ditched all their tanks.
I don't think Russia has the same cultural attitude toward casualties and attrition that the US has, and it seems to me that their objective is more than a pure grab of territory.
> Embarrassing military defeat? Check.
The war is ongoing. I have a couple of friends who share your mentality toward it, but perhaps it's better to be doubtful of the outcome and cautious about Russia's next steps.
Petroleum-based economies operate better in high-price environments. Sanctions can be painful but with oil above $80, there's no easy way to financially drain a petrostate. They keep pumping and selling. Russia's strategic position gives it unique power to manipulate the petroleum markets by affecting supply to key markets in ways that induce price volatility. Separately, the nuclear threat is real and it's hard to imagine that a country with so substantial a destructive capability is militarily drained. It's true that some young people fled Russia due to the mobilization; I met one such man earlier this month and talking to him gave me a greater understanding of Russian public sentiment toward the war. Still, it seems unreasonable to evaluate Russia's manpower without putting it in the context of the size of the substantially smaller Ukrainian military.
> I don't think Russia has the same cultural attitude toward casualties and attrition that the US has, and it seems to me that their objective is more than a pure grab of territory.
And yet they eventually left Afghanistan. The casualties became too much, and arguably helped toward the collapse of the USSR.
Putin may be willing to accept unlimited casualties, but the Russian population isn't. Not for annexing eastern Ukraine.
> The war is ongoing. I have a couple of friends who share your mentality toward it, but perhaps it's better to be doubtful of the outcome and cautious about Russia's next steps.
And Russia lost it before it began. Nobody knows what exactly a "win" looks like for them today, but the perfect scenario for them, Ukraine folding and them installing a friendly refine is no longer possible. Even if Russia manages to win in the field with the poorly trained conscripts with museum pieces they're currently fielding, they don't have the manpower to keep the tens of millions of Ukrainian citizens that will survive under their control. And as we can all see, Ukrainians won't give up. So there is no scenario in which Russia wins. Nuking Ukraine gets them a nuclear wasteland, radiation probably impacting them, and obliterates any chance of relations and trade being restored to the status quo ante bellum with pretty much most of the world, so that's not a win.
Putin probably knows this (hopefully he hasn't become that dumb). Maybe he's stalling trying to think of a way to paint anything as a win.
One scenario that would be a clear win for Putin is forcing Ukraine to formally concede the captured territories. After that he will have some peaceful time to prepare for the next round and wage the economic war against the West, where having the largest energy producers and largest manufacturer on his side, he has decent chances to win some ground as well
On top of that, the value for R&D and marketing the real-world demonstrations of these systems provide is immense. Sales of HIMARS are gonna go through the roof, and the next generation will be based on lessons learned against Russia's own current-generation weaponry, not the shitty export versions they give to places like Syria.
The US yelled at Turkey for buying Russian air defense systems because they feared information getting back to Russia on how well they fare against F-35s. That conceptual risk is now very real, but for Russia; the West now knows how to target Russian air defenses with drones, how good Russian counter-battery fire is, etc.
Long term, Russia used to be a strategic problem to China, as its huge, aggressive direct neighbor. This problem has now been solved, but helping Russia develop would risk it becoming a threat again in a generation or two.