[OutsiderFan]

The only way Ukraine can protect itself is by attacking inside Russia. The question is if this will be the case only until Ukraine recaptures its territory, or if it will continue after because Russia keeps on attacking Ukraine after it does. 

This is why the best long-term option to stop them from fighting each other is to get Ukraine in NATO.  This way, an armistice can be signed between the two countries, Ukraine can be made a member, and if Russia pulls any more shit on Ukraine, NATO will respond.

It is preposterous for the U.S. to be against making Ukraine a NATO member after the war is over, so the current stance against it might be to leave a path open to a negotiated settlement with Russia, which would require Ukraine to not join NATO. But, Jens Stoltenberg says every country should have a right to determine its own allies, and he clearly wants Ukraine in NATO or he would have put the kibosh on such talk and he hasn't.

Maybe there is some idea in U.S. foreign policy circles that Ukraine shouldn't join NATO to keep a buffer zone between Poland and Russia, and let Russia know that NATO members will arm Ukraine to the teeth so it can protect itself, as a deterrent. Perhaps there is a reason to believe the only reason Russia invaded Ukraine was because Putin didn't think Ukraine would get the military aid it has received after the fact, and now that Russia knows better, deterrence with just western military aid to Ukraine is enough to protect Ukraine.

But it seems penny wise and pound foolish to take this approach. It will be far more economical to have NATO countries ready to fight for Ukraine than to give weapons to Ukraine to fight for itself. And as has been accurately stated many times, the only thing Russia respects is power and force. Ukraine in NATO will be much more likely to end hostilities than any other alternative, especially since Russia can't be trusted to honor any agreements.

[OutsiderFan]

The only way Ukraine can protect itself is by attacking inside Russia. The question is if this will be the case only until Ukraine recaptures its territory, or if it will continue after because Russia keeps on attacking Ukraine after it does. 

This is why the best long-term option to stop them from fighting each other is to get Ukraine in NATO.  This way, an armistice can be signed between the two countries, Ukraine can be made a member, and if Russia pulls any more shit on Ukraine, NATO will respond.

It is preposterous for the U.S. to be against making Ukraine a NATO member after the war is over, so the current stance against it might be to leave a path open to a negotiated settlement with Russia, which would require Ukraine to not join NATO. But, Jens Stoltenberg says every country should have a right to determine its own allies, and he clearly wants Ukraine in NATO or he would have put the kibosh on such talk and he hasn't.

Maybe there is some idea in U.S. foreign policy circles that Ukraine shouldn't join NATO to keep a buffer zone between Poland and Russia, and let Russia know that NATO members will arm Ukraine to the teeth so it can protect itself, as a deterrent. Perhaps there is a reason to believe the only reason Russia invaded Ukraine was because Putin didn't think Ukraine would get the military aid it has received after the fact, and now that Russia knows better, deterrence with just western military aid to Ukraine is enough to protect Ukraine.

But it seems penny wise and pound foolish to take this approach. It will be far more economical to have NATO countries ready to fight for Ukraine than to give weapons to Ukraine to fight for itself. And as has been accurately stated many times, the only thing Russia respects is power and force. Ukraine in NATO will be much more likely to end hostilities than any other alternative, especially since Russia can't be trusted to honor any agreements.