I think this is certainly best.
If the Russians wind up keeping Eastern Donbas (not the whole provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk) and the Crimea, then ending the invasion and war would be best for the Ukrainians.
Many will disagree and say the Ukrainians would then have their land stolen. I think though, one could argue that they don’t control these regions anyway, and it would just make the ownership de jure as well as the current de facto.
Do I think it is wrong for Russia to wrestle these lands from them? Yes. But realpolitik would say they are never going to get them back, and I’m just acknowledging that. Zelinksyy already said they won’t join NATO, so that doesn’t have to be negotiated. He should tell the Russians, however, changing their Constitution to suit Russia is beyond negotiation. This is clearly up to the Ukrainians themselves to decide.
I’m not a Putinista, either. I actually support Ukraine as they were clearly the aggrieved party.
I like Zelinskyy and think he has risen to the challenge of his times.
But sometimes you have to give a lot to stop the carnage.
At the outset Russia stated they wanted recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states. They also wanted recognition of Crimea as part of Russia.
Do I think it is wrong for Russia to wrestle these lands from them? Yes. But realpolitik would say they are never going to get them back, and I’m just acknowledging that.
***”Realpolitik” would understand that a single missile strike 10 miles into Russian Territory to blow up an ammo dump could easily be a demo that the Ukes can blow nukes on the Rukes, utterly changing that “realpolitik” equation.