[rurabe]

The military endgame sadly is somewhere between a destroyed Ukraine in perpetual conflict and regime change, depending on the efficacy of Ukrainian resistance.

Sorry to say, autocrats do not withdraw from a conflict like this regardless of attrition. Their power is their legitimacy and defeat is a threat to both their rule and probably their life. I mean look at how much flak Biden took withdrawing from Afghanistan despite being able to say that it was a horrible idea and someone else's fault.

This is a little different from Afghanistan and Iraq though, Russia's security concerns are valid and probably ameliorated by Ukraine as a failed state (as opposed to a NATO aligned state) so conquering and pacifying the country is not necessary.

The only real humanitarian solution is a diplomatic solution. I wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will never join NATO would be enough now honestly.

[ceejayoz]

> I wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will never join NATO would be enough now honestly.

They would never have been enough; that was the abusive partner going "if you'd just do x I wouldn't have to hit you so much". Consider the ease with which Russia violated their own (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...).

[rurabe]

Honestly, I fear the resistance being too effective.

Russia is on the offensive when viewing this conflict in isolation. Zoom out to geopolitics and it is very much on the defensive.

They are locked in this conflict and if they cannot achieve their goals they will escalate. They also own the most nuclear weapons of any country on earth.

This is what the Art of War says when it says not to put enemies in a corner.

This is also a very realpolitik take on this. It goes without saying that all of this is a humanitarian disaster.