[GK3]

Totally agree with Goose:
"The real problem with any "security guarantee" is that Russia can be 98% (maybe more) certain that none of the countries offering the guarantee will actually fight. If they intended to do so, they would already be doing it."

To be clear, that includes the USA, from day 1.

1) Any "guarantee" offered by Europe with weak Armies is just hand waving.  

2) UK and France three weeks ago were strutting around offering 25,000 troops to be stationed inside UKR as the "assurance" -- then they could not define "Rules of Engagement" when they shot at by Russia... Do they shoot back?  With what level of ordnance, ammo, air attack, missiles... ?  No answer.   Path to WW3 with Russia killing NATO member soldiers.  
#BadEscalation.

Possibly true. OTOH one can argue that is the reason Russia would not do it. That is why the US has troops in the Baltic States (and Korea for that matter). Tactically they are a "speed bump". They can't stop a Russian invasion attempt. They can slow it down, and their blood ensures a US kinetic response, not "hand waving". This isn't new. 2ACR served a similar role during the Cold War. They even called themselves the "speed bump" and they all knew their orders included the word "retain".  They intended to do exactly that, and Russia knew it. Further, Russia feared they actually could. 5th Panzer also had some interesting ideas :-).

AND, Europe is out of ammo now; they cannot train troops!  

3) So, now Europe is left HIRING UKR to fight Russia as the default condition.  No Ceasefire, because it cannot be ENFORCED.  It is just ink on paper. .

Mess.  USA is walking away from a "Quagmire" that Europe lacks der Wille unt the means to deal with.  
Cruel Karma for France leaving us IndoChina in the 60s.

Of course France argues the exact opposite :-). It is true we refused to supply the air cover they asked for. That might have been one of the few good decisions made by the US regarding IndoChina. It is also quite true that the US urged the FRG to follow a "Don't scare the Bear" policy after the end of the Cold War. That doesn't absolve them from responsibility, but we were very complicit.

No John Wayne to ride in and take out the Bad Guys.

True. However it is unclear that Ukraine as a military force is "done". It is also unclear negotiations are "done". IMO  Russia never wanted a cease fire or peace anyway. Their apparent insistence that Ukraine agree to cede Crimea to Russia as a requirement for peace guaranteed that Ukraine would reject the offer. Their constitution explicitly forbids doing that. Zelenskyy couldn't do that if he wanted to. The Constitutional Court would void it if he did. The US knew such a peace deal was DOA for that reason alone.

Ever since the terms were made public, primarily that Ukraine give up claims to Crimea, the whole peace talk thing made no sense at all.  If you know one side won't agree to the terms, why do it? Ukraine is probably stronger now than it was 9 months ago.  The Russian Economy has issues and if the war drags on what happens?  Is Putin just trying to convince the home folk that he is really trying to stop the war and its continuing just because Ukraine won't give up Crimea.  Maybe he can sell that at home, seems unlikely.

[GK3]

Totally agree with Goose:
"The real problem with any "security guarantee" is that Russia can be 98% (maybe more) certain that none of the countries offering the guarantee will actually fight. If they intended to do so, they would already be doing it."

To be clear, that includes the USA, from day 1.

1) Any "guarantee" offered by Europe with weak Armies is just hand waving.  

2) UK and France three weeks ago were strutting around offering 25,000 troops to be stationed inside UKR as the "assurance" -- then they could not define "Rules of Engagement" when they shot at by Russia... Do they shoot back?  With what level of ordnance, ammo, air attack, missiles... ?  No answer.   Path to WW3 with Russia killing NATO member soldiers.  
#BadEscalation.

Possibly true. OTOH one can argue that is the reason Russia would not do it. That is why the US has troops in the Baltic States (and Korea for that matter). Tactically they are a "speed bump". They can't stop a Russian invasion attempt. They can slow it down, and their blood ensures a US kinetic response, not "hand waving". This isn't new. 2ACR served a similar role during the Cold War. They even called themselves the "speed bump" and they all knew their orders included the word "retain".  They intended to do exactly that, and Russia knew it. Further, Russia feared they actually could. 5th Panzer also had some interesting ideas :-).

AND, Europe is out of ammo now; they cannot train troops!  

3) So, now Europe is left HIRING UKR to fight Russia as the default condition.  No Ceasefire, because it cannot be ENFORCED.  It is just ink on paper. .

Mess.  USA is walking away from a "Quagmire" that Europe lacks der Wille unt the means to deal with.  
Cruel Karma for France leaving us IndoChina in the 60s.

Of course France argues the exact opposite :-). It is true we refused to supply the air cover they asked for. That might have been one of the few good decisions made by the US regarding IndoChina. It is also quite true that the US urged the FRG to follow a "Don't scare the Bear" policy after the end of the Cold War. That doesn't absolve them from responsibility, but we were very complicit.

No John Wayne to ride in and take out the Bad Guys.

True. However it is unclear that Ukraine as a military force is "done". It is also unclear negotiations are "done". IMO  Russia never wanted a cease fire or peace anyway. Their apparent insistence that Ukraine agree to cede Crimea to Russia as a requirement for peace guaranteed that Ukraine would reject the offer. Their constitution explicitly forbids doing that. Zelenskyy couldn't do that if he wanted to. The Constitutional Court would void it if he did. The US knew such a peace deal was DOA for that reason alone.

Ever since the terms were made public, primarily that Ukraine give up claims to Crimea, the whole peace talk thing made no sense at all.  If you know one side won't agree to the terms, why do it? Ukraine is probably stronger now than it was 9 months ago.  The Russian Economy has issues and if the war drags on what happens?  Is Putin just trying to convince the home folk that he is really trying to stop the war and its continuing just because Ukraine won't give up Crimea.  Maybe he can sell that at home, seems unlikely.