> That would be nice, but what are the chances of that happening in your opinion without the US and Europe’s promising that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO and the US and Europe’s promising to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine?

There is zero chance the war would take more than a slight pause before resuming in full force with a less-capable Ukraine if Ukraine’s allies promised to stop supplying it with weapons. (The Russo-Georgian War, immediately, and with a slight delay because of temporarily Russia-favorable political conditions that emerged in the interim in Ukraine, the Russo-Ukrainian War are both direct results, in fact, of that kind of accommodationist thought winning the day at the 2008 NATO summit with regard to Russia’s demand at the time that Georgia and Ukraine not have Membership Action Plans extended to them. Fool me once…)

There’s a very good chance that Russia will stop if that does not happen, even if it is unlikely that the current leadership would do so.

Realistically that probably won't happen until there is a regime change in Russia. So, the best option for now is to keep giving Ukraine all of the weapons they ask for in order to maintain a stalemate and inflict as many casualties on Russia as possible. Russia has a large population but it's not unlimited; kill enough and eventually the civilians will march on the Kremlin. This may take years.

Ultimately it's up to the Ukrainians what terms they want to negotiate. But it would seem foolish to give up the option of joining NATO and the EU just to gain a temporary peace. If they're going to survive as an independent country rather than a Russian vassal state then they will need alliances with nuclear powers.

Chances are small, but I wanted to immediately oppose the "we should start the peace negotiation process" narrative, which often (not necessarily here, but often) implies that Ukraine needs to do something to achieve peace, that Ukraine is somehow responsible for the war and that Ukraine must concede territory.

This narrative is being strongly pushed in various social media by Russian troll farms.

Another option is a "frozen conflict" -- for Ukraine to accept a cease fire with current front lines, but not to recognize Russia's claims of sovereignty. Leaving open the possibility of a final counteroffensive after Putin croaks. Some 43 percent of Ukrainians are open to some form of negotiations, according to a recent poll (independent of Russia's deranged narratives).

> a cease fire with current front lines

That would only serve as an opportunity for Russia to regroup, build up the war machine, and attack again, possibly not just Ukraine.

That's the standard first-pass response, of course.

It could also serve as an opportunity for Ukraine to do the same in reverse -- ultimately leading to a Russian withdraw (many years later but with many lives spared also).

OTOH, a continuation of the status quo (assuming the political climate in Western countries permits the Ukrainians to do so, which is in itself a highly dodgy proposition) is not at all guaranteed to end in Ukraine's interest, and brings certain obvious tail risks to the rest of the world as well.

Ultimately it's a matter for the Ukrainians to decide. My only point is that it's perfectly possible to discuss different options for achieving the same desired end result (which it seems we agree on) -- without having to label these as being in favor of Russian "peace narratives".