My point is you don't know that and you have absolutely no way of knowing it to any degree of certainty. None of us do. The difference is that you think that's a likely scenario while I think that's the most unlikely one.
What I do know is:
Russia has said for more than a decade it would invade Ukraine if NATO moved in.
It offered to call off the invasion in January if NATO stopped arming Ukraine.
And throughout the war, Russia has offered to leave if Ukraine said it will keep NATO out.
People can disagree over if it is a reasonable request, but I think it is at least very clear what Russia wants. I think there is a good chance that would would leave if Ukraine accepts the peace terms they have been offering.
NATO hasn't moved into Ukraine and Russia has attacked it nevertheless.
> It offered to call off the invasion in January if NATO stopped arming Ukraine.
"We won't invade if you weaken your defenses" is ... not a very convincing "offer" from a country that has already invaded you in the recent past.
> And throughout the war, Russia has offered to leave if Ukraine said it will keep NATO out.
That's not the only Russian demand, no. And crucially, the demands mean Russia can just repeat the same thing again whenever it feels like trying again, against a Ukraine they forced to be less able to defend itself (because as you've established above, arming itself is violating neutrality if it obtains weapons from the west). Oops, again didn't elect a puppet in the next election and won't just turn into Belarus 2.0? How unfortunate, needs denazification again, sorry. But sure, you're "just pointing out that Ukraine can make Russia go home tomorrow.", and all will be fine. You're pretending a massive gamble is an obvious decision.
>NATO hasn't moved into Ukraine and Russia has attacked it nevertheless.
NATO/ Primarily the US has moved $billions of weapons and thousands of troops into Ukraine year after year and conducted joint war exercises for war with Russia.
>"We won't invade if you weaken your defenses" is ... not a very convincing "offer" from a country that has already invaded you in the recent past
I totally agree that is a tough pill to swallow, but perhaps not insurmountable. I don't have the solutions, but perhaps with a demilitarization of the boarder or third party assurances.
Why, If you if your homeland is saved from invasion either way? A peace deal and withdraw saves the country, and a long war followed by withdraw saves the country.
>If you excuse my comparison - your advice sounds like telling a person being raped to just stop struggling, it will end sooner that way. Ukraine is currently being invaded by Russia - they should fight with all their might to destroy the invader.
I'm not talking about surrender. I'm talking about peace where Russia goes home and Ukraine is an independent country. This isn't not passively being raped, it is doing something to stop the rape immediately.
>if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died, not less.
IF that's true, then of course you shouldn't surrender! Again, the question is not of surrender, but a peace deal and Russian withdrawal. Is there no point were compromise is possible? Would you not give $1 to Russia to go home, end the war, and save countless lives?