[Goose]

It would be a tough but probably necessary pill for Ukraine to swallow to give up hope of recovering territory lost to Russia.  I agree that it is unlikely, barring some sort of unanticipated political or economic collapse in Russia for Ukraine to be able to recapture territory it lost to Russia.  As is oft quoted, hope is not a strategy.

Given the slow but steady advances that Russia has been making in the battlefield, Ukraine might even have to cede the 20% or so of Donetsk that it doesn’t already control.  This would be a very tough pill to swallow.  More than just the principle, this is a very heavily fortified area that is the gateway to a much less defensible Dnipro river valley that would give an attacker coming from the East (AKA, Russia) a straight shot to Kyiv.

Now, all of that might be hard to stomach, but doable, if Ukraine was confident that it had a peaceful neighbor to the East who respected its territorial integrity and previous signed commitments (going back to the 1994 Budapest memorandum).  Unfortunately, prior experience points to the fact that having pocketed the territorial concessions of any cease fire will rebuild its troops, Russia will not hesitate to come up with a thinly veiled excuse to attack again.  This is why there has been such a strong emphasis on security guarantees.  But, as you have pointed out in the past, whether Europeans and, especially, Americans, would be willing to suffer casualties to protect Ukraine is a highly debatable assumption, no matter how you structure the guarantee.  Alas, hope is also not a strategy when it comes to peace treaties (perhaps we need an update to Reagan’s “trust but verify”).

So, Ukraine is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and the question is honestly which option, a drawn out war of attrition where Russia slowly but methodically takes over Ukranian territory or a highly disadvantageous peace treaty which probably only allows Ukraine to bide for time before a likely resumption of hostilities.

BC

Unfortunately the above is IMO quite correct. Ukraine has never had a "good" strategy to force Russia to leave Ukraine alone. When the previous US administration began helping Ukraine it was assumed (by both Ukraine and the US public) that there was an at least somewhat reasonable plan to give Ukraine the ability (at a minimum) to drive Russia out of sovereign Ukrainian territory. It quickly became clear that was not the case, but everyone proceeded as if it were, or "soon" would be.
 
In 2023 Ukraine attempted an offensive that, if successful, probably would have forced the Russians out of at least Southern Ukraine. It was not successful because Russia had been allowed a year to fortify their positions, promised minefield breaching equipment was not supplied, Ukraine had inadequate ability to repel Russian tactical helicopters, and the fact it is very difficult to build a combined arms army from scratch in the middle of a war. As it turned out, even if the offensive had been a success Ukraine lacked the mobile troops to exploit the breakthrough. That was their best shot. After that, it was fight a defensive war and hope Russia would quit. The reasons to hope Russia would quit were economic collapse due to sanctions, inability to sustain heavy casualties or political instability due to the effects of the war. None of these things show any signs of being imminent.
 
Ukraine's ability to continue fighting is decreasing, partly due to Russian missile/drone attacks and partly due to infantry attrition. Zelenskyy wouldn't even be considering the compromises he has been asked to make if that were not the case. Indeed Ukraine has no "good" choices. In the end, I don't think it much matters what Ukraine "chooses" to do. Putin is determined to take over the whole country and will keep fighting until he does. The "make me" message is clear. Ukraine can't, and neither the US or the Europeans are going to try. Of course, Ukraine can fight on hoping Putin dies. It worked for Frederick the Great.

---

And Russia builds up its manufacturing military industrial base beyond what slacker Europe has. 
Last summer Merz admitted that for decades, Europe was a free rider on US security blanket. 

You do of course realize Merz doesn't believe that for a second, and his population doesn't believe it either. Merz is saying what he has to say to placate the current administration, nothing more. When German reunification occurred, the US motto for Germany was "Don't scare the bear." It was assumed by all concerned (including the US) that the threat of a major European war was over forever. Never again could that happen. The US downsized its forces in Europe massively, basically by a factor of 4. We were just fine with Germany reducing their defense spending. Not until 2014 (at the earliest) did this start to turn around, and even then nobody thought Russia was actually going to invade Ukraine. Indeed, it was foolish for all concerned to ignore the fact Russia existed and had territorial ambitions in former Soviet territories. But that is exactly what we and the Europeans mutually did. We all liked the "peace dividend".

[Goose]

It would be a tough but probably necessary pill for Ukraine to swallow to give up hope of recovering territory lost to Russia.  I agree that it is unlikely, barring some sort of unanticipated political or economic collapse in Russia for Ukraine to be able to recapture territory it lost to Russia.  As is oft quoted, hope is not a strategy.

Given the slow but steady advances that Russia has been making in the battlefield, Ukraine might even have to cede the 20% or so of Donetsk that it doesn’t already control.  This would be a very tough pill to swallow.  More than just the principle, this is a very heavily fortified area that is the gateway to a much less defensible Dnipro river valley that would give an attacker coming from the East (AKA, Russia) a straight shot to Kyiv.

Now, all of that might be hard to stomach, but doable, if Ukraine was confident that it had a peaceful neighbor to the East who respected its territorial integrity and previous signed commitments (going back to the 1994 Budapest memorandum).  Unfortunately, prior experience points to the fact that having pocketed the territorial concessions of any cease fire will rebuild its troops, Russia will not hesitate to come up with a thinly veiled excuse to attack again.  This is why there has been such a strong emphasis on security guarantees.  But, as you have pointed out in the past, whether Europeans and, especially, Americans, would be willing to suffer casualties to protect Ukraine is a highly debatable assumption, no matter how you structure the guarantee.  Alas, hope is also not a strategy when it comes to peace treaties (perhaps we need an update to Reagan’s “trust but verify”).

So, Ukraine is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and the question is honestly which option, a drawn out war of attrition where Russia slowly but methodically takes over Ukranian territory or a highly disadvantageous peace treaty which probably only allows Ukraine to bide for time before a likely resumption of hostilities.

BC

Unfortunately the above is IMO quite correct. Ukraine has never had a "good" strategy to force Russia to leave Ukraine alone. When the previous US administration began helping Ukraine it was assumed (by both Ukraine and the US public) that there was an at least somewhat reasonable plan to give Ukraine the ability (at a minimum) to drive Russia out of sovereign Ukrainian territory. It quickly became clear that was not the case, but everyone proceeded as if it were, or "soon" would be.
 
In 2023 Ukraine attempted an offensive that, if successful, probably would have forced the Russians out of at least Southern Ukraine. It was not successful because Russia had been allowed a year to fortify their positions, promised minefield breaching equipment was not supplied, Ukraine had inadequate ability to repel Russian tactical helicopters, and the fact it is very difficult to build a combined arms army from scratch in the middle of a war. As it turned out, even if the offensive had been a success Ukraine lacked the mobile troops to exploit the breakthrough. That was their best shot. After that, it was fight a defensive war and hope Russia would quit. The reasons to hope Russia would quit were economic collapse due to sanctions, inability to sustain heavy casualties or political instability due to the effects of the war. None of these things show any signs of being imminent.
 
Ukraine's ability to continue fighting is decreasing, partly due to Russian missile/drone attacks and partly due to infantry attrition. Zelenskyy wouldn't even be considering the compromises he has been asked to make if that were not the case. Indeed Ukraine has no "good" choices. In the end, I don't think it much matters what Ukraine "chooses" to do. Putin is determined to take over the whole country and will keep fighting until he does. The "make me" message is clear. Ukraine can't, and neither the US or the Europeans are going to try. Of course, Ukraine can fight on hoping Putin dies. It worked for Frederick the Great.

---

And Russia builds up its manufacturing military industrial base beyond what slacker Europe has. 
Last summer Merz admitted that for decades, Europe was a free rider on US security blanket. 

You do of course realize Merz doesn't believe that for a second, and his population doesn't believe it either. Merz is saying what he has to say to placate the current administration, nothing more. When German reunification occurred, the US motto for Germany was "Don't scare the bear." It was assumed by all concerned (including the US) that the threat of a major European war was over forever. Never again could that happen. The US downsized its forces in Europe massively, basically by a factor of 4. We were just fine with Germany reducing their defense spending. Not until 2014 (at the earliest) did this start to turn around, and even then nobody thought Russia was actually going to invade Ukraine. Indeed, it was foolish for all concerned to ignore the fact Russia existed and had territorial ambitions in former Soviet territories. But that is exactly what we and the Europeans mutually did. We all liked the "peace dividend".