[GK3]

If the negotiated settlement included the return of abducted/filtrated Ukrainians, it might be more palatable.

I am concerned that the populations of the NATO countries will get tired of seeing billions of dollars ground up in the war in Ukraine with nothing to show for it. I think NATO has to get very serious about giving the Ukraine what it needs to at least force a stalemate and some sort of negotiated peace and do that soon.  Actual recapture of all occupied territories, including Crimea, may well be a bridge too far. Ukraine's ability to field enough manpower is going to start to decline soon if it hasn't already.  I could see a situation where the Ukraine starts to lose territory to the Russians simply due to lack of manpower and sufficient armaments.  At that point a few NATO countries might start sending troops. I think there is starting to be the belief in Europe that as long as Putin is in charge, Western European Countries are in danger.  This could easily escalate to combat troops being sent to Ukraine.  Better to fight in someone else's country than wait until they get to yours.

I totally agree that the populations of NATO countries are getting tired of spending money that seems to have no good result. It must be remembered that there were skeptics from the beginning. There are also some nations (Hungary, Slovakia) that oppose any aid to Ukraine at all. Unfortunately, the only document Putin is ever going to sign, absent a Ukrainian victory in the south, is a de-facto or de-jure Ukrainian surrender.  Period. Full stop.

If Ukraine is running out of troops and if Western aid is drying up, Russia has no reason to stop what they are doing. Russia has survived the economic effects of sanctions. They have not run out of ammunition and they aren't going to do so. They have bought time to mobilize their economy for a long war. They are hollowing out a generation with casualties in Ukraine, but there is no indication they cannot continue doing this. As long as Putin believes that Ukraine is going to fold (because it has no choice), he will keep pounding away. No person doing a sane benefit-cost evaluation of this war for Russia would have started it. Putin isn't going to suddenly decide it isn't worth it. Putin is fully committed to the end of Ukraine as an independent nation. The only way that won't happen is if Putin is physically stopped. Otherwise, the war continues.

Ukraine has no way to bring the war to Russia. They can't threaten to bomb Moscow. They are doing all they can, which is more than anybody would have guessed they could. However, it isn't nearly enough to force Russia out of the war. The only loss that Ukraine has any chance to execute that would discomfit  Russia is recapture/threatened recapture of Crimea. Ukraine know this. They also know they have to "fight like NATO" to do this. They have said that time after time. They also have stated that technology is their only way to victory. In an continuing battle of attrition, Ukraine runs out of bodies first. Unfortunately, Ukraine is still reliant on infantry for most of their combat power. If it is true that Ukraine cannot, even after they get their F-16s in place, break through the Russian defenses and threaten Crimea, they lose. There is no option of a "negotiated settlement" without this success, because Russia has no incentive to accept one. Ukraine needs to give them a reason to quit. Can Ukraine execute a successful offensive in the South? IMO it is possible, but they only get one more shot at it. The West has to step up and help make that happen.
Any other plan is intellectually bankrupt IMO.

It makes no sense to send NATO troops to Ukraine unless NATO is "all in" on a Ukrainian victory. What are these troops going to do if not fight Russians? If they fight, some will die. Does any European country think the rest of NATO will step up and honor an invocation of article 5 due to losses incurred in Ukraine? Does anybody believe the US will? IMO the answers are No and Hell NO. I don't believe that Macron has enough support among the French people to do anything like sending troops to Ukraine. It grabs headlines, but it isn't politically feasible. While it is true that many Europeans are becoming worried about the implications of Ukraine being defeated, it is totally unclear that the majority response is to fight back right now. At this point, trying to reach an accommodation is a much more probable response IMO. This becomes a virtual certainty if the US appears to be wavering in our commitments in Europe.

If NATO wanted to actually do something "aggressive" to help, it would provide AWACS services to Ukraine. That would actually help and wouldn't involve troops on the ground in Ukraine. That isn't happening. When I see it happen, then I might believe NATO is willing to risk conflict with Russia in Ukraine. IMO the only mechanism that will "widen the war" is the equivalent of a Tonkin Gulf event, either because of a miscalculation by Russia or a "false flag" operation by Ukraine. If Ukraine loses it will be interesting to se what the Hungarian government has to say about the treatment of minorities by Russia in the former Ukraine. Of course, if Ukraine loses the vast majority of Ukrainians will probably become refugees in Europe.

Your points are well taken.  I wonder if the new Ukrainian offense against Russia's Oil and Gas Industry will pay off. It certainly seems to be impacting a portion of the civilian sector, and could impact the Military's ability to fuel its planes, tanks and trucks. I doubt Russia has the ability to defend all those oil and gas installations and Ukraine is showing a rather amazing ability to design and produce cheap one way drones which do not need a big payload to turn a refinery or tank farm into an inferno. Plus I think Russia has only 5 ports within its own territory for shipping oil and gas products.  Ukraine is already hitting at least two of those.

[GK3]

If the negotiated settlement included the return of abducted/filtrated Ukrainians, it might be more palatable.

I am concerned that the populations of the NATO countries will get tired of seeing billions of dollars ground up in the war in Ukraine with nothing to show for it. I think NATO has to get very serious about giving the Ukraine what it needs to at least force a stalemate and some sort of negotiated peace and do that soon.  Actual recapture of all occupied territories, including Crimea, may well be a bridge too far. Ukraine's ability to field enough manpower is going to start to decline soon if it hasn't already.  I could see a situation where the Ukraine starts to lose territory to the Russians simply due to lack of manpower and sufficient armaments.  At that point a few NATO countries might start sending troops. I think there is starting to be the belief in Europe that as long as Putin is in charge, Western European Countries are in danger.  This could easily escalate to combat troops being sent to Ukraine.  Better to fight in someone else's country than wait until they get to yours.

I totally agree that the populations of NATO countries are getting tired of spending money that seems to have no good result. It must be remembered that there were skeptics from the beginning. There are also some nations (Hungary, Slovakia) that oppose any aid to Ukraine at all. Unfortunately, the only document Putin is ever going to sign, absent a Ukrainian victory in the south, is a de-facto or de-jure Ukrainian surrender.  Period. Full stop.

If Ukraine is running out of troops and if Western aid is drying up, Russia has no reason to stop what they are doing. Russia has survived the economic effects of sanctions. They have not run out of ammunition and they aren't going to do so. They have bought time to mobilize their economy for a long war. They are hollowing out a generation with casualties in Ukraine, but there is no indication they cannot continue doing this. As long as Putin believes that Ukraine is going to fold (because it has no choice), he will keep pounding away. No person doing a sane benefit-cost evaluation of this war for Russia would have started it. Putin isn't going to suddenly decide it isn't worth it. Putin is fully committed to the end of Ukraine as an independent nation. The only way that won't happen is if Putin is physically stopped. Otherwise, the war continues.

Ukraine has no way to bring the war to Russia. They can't threaten to bomb Moscow. They are doing all they can, which is more than anybody would have guessed they could. However, it isn't nearly enough to force Russia out of the war. The only loss that Ukraine has any chance to execute that would discomfit  Russia is recapture/threatened recapture of Crimea. Ukraine know this. They also know they have to "fight like NATO" to do this. They have said that time after time. They also have stated that technology is their only way to victory. In an continuing battle of attrition, Ukraine runs out of bodies first. Unfortunately, Ukraine is still reliant on infantry for most of their combat power. If it is true that Ukraine cannot, even after they get their F-16s in place, break through the Russian defenses and threaten Crimea, they lose. There is no option of a "negotiated settlement" without this success, because Russia has no incentive to accept one. Ukraine needs to give them a reason to quit. Can Ukraine execute a successful offensive in the South? IMO it is possible, but they only get one more shot at it. The West has to step up and help make that happen.
Any other plan is intellectually bankrupt IMO.

It makes no sense to send NATO troops to Ukraine unless NATO is "all in" on a Ukrainian victory. What are these troops going to do if not fight Russians? If they fight, some will die. Does any European country think the rest of NATO will step up and honor an invocation of article 5 due to losses incurred in Ukraine? Does anybody believe the US will? IMO the answers are No and Hell NO. I don't believe that Macron has enough support among the French people to do anything like sending troops to Ukraine. It grabs headlines, but it isn't politically feasible. While it is true that many Europeans are becoming worried about the implications of Ukraine being defeated, it is totally unclear that the majority response is to fight back right now. At this point, trying to reach an accommodation is a much more probable response IMO. This becomes a virtual certainty if the US appears to be wavering in our commitments in Europe.

If NATO wanted to actually do something "aggressive" to help, it would provide AWACS services to Ukraine. That would actually help and wouldn't involve troops on the ground in Ukraine. That isn't happening. When I see it happen, then I might believe NATO is willing to risk conflict with Russia in Ukraine. IMO the only mechanism that will "widen the war" is the equivalent of a Tonkin Gulf event, either because of a miscalculation by Russia or a "false flag" operation by Ukraine. If Ukraine loses it will be interesting to se what the Hungarian government has to say about the treatment of minorities by Russia in the former Ukraine. Of course, if Ukraine loses the vast majority of Ukrainians will probably become refugees in Europe.

Your points are well taken.  I wonder if the new Ukrainian offense against Russia's Oil and Gas Industry will pay off. It certainly seems to be impacting a portion of the civilian sector, and could impact the Military's ability to fuel its planes, tanks and trucks. I doubt Russia has the ability to defend all those oil and gas installations and Ukraine is showing a rather amazing ability to design and produce cheap one way drones which do not need a big payload to turn a refinery or tank farm into an inferno. Plus I think Russia has only 5 ports within its own territory for shipping oil and gas products.  Ukraine is already hitting at least two of those.