Realistically Ukraine doesn’t have the fighting age men or the resources to beat the Russians. So other nations would have to throw in their personnel.
What nations would want to lose 30,000-60,000 men and a few trillion dollars to fight Russia to a stopping point? And what is the payoff if they do?
Basically your question boils down to this - why is it in the US’ interests (not FJB’s interest) to keep funding the Ukraine-Russia war?
There does not seem to be an end zone here. Thune should be asked - what happens after the 60 billion is spent, ... will this end the war with a defeated Russia?
“...to lose 30,000-60,000 men and a few trillion dollars to fight Russia...”
It’s more than just manpower losses. Russia controls a little over 10% of our natural gas usage. You can be assured if we put boots on the gound that will stop and Russia will raise the price in EU to cover the financial loss. Meantime, the primary use for natural gas in the US is to generate electrical power. Natural gas is the source of more than 25% of the nation’s electricity. With the Biden administration’s kulling of our own natural gas producers we will be in a considerable brownout nation wide shortly that will take years to catch up on if we can.
Add in the loss on transportation and manufacturing, and we come to a standstill. We need to back out while we can. And again, write it off as we will never get the money back we put into it. And besides saving money it might save a whole lot of lives from both here and in the Ukraine population.
The north during our civil war found out about fighting on their own turf when the south went clear into Pennsyvania. The bluecoats never planned on that either. Different weapons, same result.
wy69