Ok, some morons on the internet called for extreme, unreasonable and irrational actions.

Who has been calling for sanctions or military action against India? Western leaders have said they were disappointed and reiterated their position on countries helping Russia dodge sanctions, but I must've missed active calls for sanctions or military action.

I mean, I get why India has been so neutral; their military worked closely with Russia's, the west has previously favored Pakistan, and India can use ties with Russia for leverage to keep relative peace with China. All of this excludes the obvious reasons India doesn't get along with former European colonizers. Its a shame they didn't make a stand from a point of fundamentally opposing all imperialism, but I can see their reasoning.

Like Russian victory?

Russia is the attacker with the non-existent supply lines in Ukraine. The whole "winter" thing is the deaths of thousands of conscripts.

With the upcoming winter, Conscript Ivan Notgayovich, currently VDV Sergeant previously double life without parole in Siberia for cannibalism, with his blue tarp tied to a tree that he shares with a dozen other conscripts, is going to die of hypothermia clutching the rusty AKM and half magazine he was issued while Ukraine, equipped with actual winter equipment, will make short work of the invaders. Or have you forgotten how winter benefits the country with intact logistics and stable equipment acquisitions, generally the defender?

I mean, Ukraine has done nothing but advance and successfully defend from counter-attacks on all fronts, and already advanced to where the land routes to Crimea are under threat. They also hit the bridge, which though repaired, is still unusable by large trucks and trains due to structural damage. They did the same thing to the Russians at Kherson: made it impossible to maintain those positions and wait for the withdrawal. I see no reason why it couldn't happen again. And if the reason is "because nukes" then why, when Russia suffered previous major defeats, weren't they used already? Standard Russian doctrine at their wargames concludes with using a nuke to force negotiations. They would've used one by now if they were ever going to. They won't. They posture and brag and threaten but they're losing and can't do anything about it. Even if they use a nuke, Ukraine won't give in. Russia won't deplete their functional missiles over Ukraine. Ukraine surrendering means deaths for millions of innocents, as per the mass murders found everywhere the Russians have been, and a signal to every tin-pot tyrant that having or using nukes gets you a free-pass to conquer and pillage as you please. Ukraine can't give in, so Russia can't win.

If by "foreseeable future" you mean next few months until it becomes impossible to resupply due to Ukrainian advances cutting off all supply routes and/or Ukraine just retaking it manually, then yes.

If you instead mean that Russia is going to keep control of it, then you should go back to whichever hole you've not been paying attention from for the past several months.