Eugine,

That’s a reasonable position to take. Although I’d argue that supporting Ukraine’s fight for 3 years resulting in the deaths of between 100,000 and 900,000 Russian troops should hardly be categorized as “abandoning Ukraine.” It’s more an admission that it’s time to face reality.

A pragmatic approach needs to be taken. I see three options:

1. Give Ukraine the support to “win” the war. This means NATO forces (let’s be honest, American forces) on the ground. This essentially means World War III. Whether or not that leads to nuclear war is debatable.

2. Abandon Ukraine entirely. I don’t think anyone is talking about this.

3. Negotiating a peace deal.

#3 is distasteful but #1 and #2 are worse.

I’ll return to my Cold War analogy. It wasn’t won through direct military action but through long term opposition. Russia, no, let’s be honest who we’re fighting here, Putin won’t be defeated through direct military action either. Adopting the Cold War strategy of opposing on all fronts and containing is the best approach.

Something else to take into consideration. If you think America is headed for war (with Russia, China, or whoever), arms and munitions will obviously be needed. Here’s how long it will take to replace some of the arms and ammo sent to Ukraine:

1. 155mm artillery shells - 4 to 7 years

2. Javelin anti-tank missiles - 8 to 10 years

3. Stinger anti-aircraft missiles - 10 to 15 years

4. HIMARS systems and rockets - 2.5 to 4 years

Wars cannot be fought indefinitely. Victory needs a clear and achievable (back to my original point). If your goals aren’t achievable, which I’d argue kicking Russia out of Ukraine isn’t, then a negotiated peace is the best you’re likely to do.

TLDR - I respectfully disagree with your position.