[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

I don’t think you’re correct here. Leaving aside your obsession with casting everything as an extension of US foreign policy (which this is not; not when obvious genocide is being perpetrated and there is an extremely high level of commitment to resist, across the Ukrainian population), the Russian invasion has emboldened most of its former satellites in Eastern Europe and the baltics to support Ukraine well beyond the level of most others on per capita terms.

Ukraine faces an existential struggle now and others see themselves in the front line if Ukraine falls. If support in the US becomes lukewarm then there are plenty of other highly motivated donors in Europe and a highly motivated population in Ukraine that realises a ceasefire that leaves Russia in possession of any of Ukraine is simply a pause while Russia regains the means to start again.

With the support only of Eastern European countries the pace will slow but the war will not grind to a negotiated halt. What possible reason could Ukraine have to agree to leave its citizens in occupied territory, after the horrors of Bucha and with similar now coming to light in Lyman and elsewhere?

As I emphasised in my post to Pierre my post was based on his assumptions holding true.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don’t think Ukraine, on their own, can take back all the territory taken by Russia in this offensive, let alone Crimea.

So, I say again, if only repelling Russia from all of Ukraine is acceptable. I.e. no negotiation at all, total removal of Russia only.

And Ukraine are incapable of achieving that, what happens?

Just keep the destruction and death, ticking over.

Your suggestion of a “frozen conflict” is not a cessation of war. Unless you mean an agreement is reached, or at least acknowledged, which is what I have suggested. A negotiated peace.

Other assumptions are available.