[Goose]

I didn’t say that the US would leave Ukraine defenseless after the negotiated settlement. I think a negotiated settlement might well include a NATO force in Ukraine to help defend the new border and deter further attacks.

There are at least two serious problems with this approach. First, given our track record in Ukraine there is little chance that Ukraine (or Russia for that matter) would believe our assertion that we would actively help defend their border has any meaning at all. In the Budapest agreements we said we would do just that. We never have. Even if the administration that signed the agreement fully intended to do so, their is no reasonable assurance that subsequent administrations (or the US Congress) would honor it. History says we won't. Even if there is a "hostage force" in Ukraine, it may not fight. The Russians could just avoid it as much as possible while issuing all kinds of threats. That force itself would be inadequate to actually protect Ukraine and without massive reinforcement and support from NATO it wouldn't be effective. It still comes back to NATO's "will", which based on history and the current state of play in Ukraine is totally lacking. Why would NATO fight to defend a "rump" Ukraine and won't fight now to defend a viable one? There would be even more reasons not to do so.

Second, given the current state of public opinion in the NATO countries the probability of any of them agreeing to send such a force and thereby make a commitment to defend the rump Ukraine is zero. The simple fact is that nations act in their own perceived interests. If the US and NATO will not send troops now to defend Ukraine because they do not consider it in their vital interest, why would they station troops in a rump Ukraine? The same risks of a direct conflict with Russia would exist. Nobody is going to do that. If Ukraine became a full NATO member then possibly the necessity to support NATO (even if the individual nations really don't want to on its own merit) would perhaps allow such a force to exist. However, the probability of all NATO nations agreeing to Ukrainian membership in NATO is even lower that some bilateral agreements being created. Even the US didn't support that before this war. Why would we now?

Last, a Ukrainian state based on current military positions is simply not viable. Ukraine was the poorest country in Europe before they lost access to the sea of Azov and the transportation network in the south and east of the country. It carried most of their trade. What remains would be much worse off even setting aside all the war damage to the rest of the country. Such an agreement would simply leave a situation that is not viable.  See Czechoslovakia in 1938 and what happened in spring of 1939. It may postpone the inevitable, but it will still be inevitable.

[Goose]

I didn’t say that the US would leave Ukraine defenseless after the negotiated settlement. I think a negotiated settlement might well include a NATO force in Ukraine to help defend the new border and deter further attacks.

There are at least two serious problems with this approach. First, given our track record in Ukraine there is little chance that Ukraine (or Russia for that matter) would believe our assertion that we would actively help defend their border has any meaning at all. In the Budapest agreements we said we would do just that. We never have. Even if the administration that signed the agreement fully intended to do so, their is no reasonable assurance that subsequent administrations (or the US Congress) would honor it. History says we won't. Even if there is a "hostage force" in Ukraine, it may not fight. The Russians could just avoid it as much as possible while issuing all kinds of threats. That force itself would be inadequate to actually protect Ukraine and without massive reinforcement and support from NATO it wouldn't be effective. It still comes back to NATO's "will", which based on history and the current state of play in Ukraine is totally lacking. Why would NATO fight to defend a "rump" Ukraine and won't fight now to defend a viable one? There would be even more reasons not to do so.

Second, given the current state of public opinion in the NATO countries the probability of any of them agreeing to send such a force and thereby make a commitment to defend the rump Ukraine is zero. The simple fact is that nations act in their own perceived interests. If the US and NATO will not send troops now to defend Ukraine because they do not consider it in their vital interest, why would they station troops in a rump Ukraine? The same risks of a direct conflict with Russia would exist. Nobody is going to do that. If Ukraine became a full NATO member then possibly the necessity to support NATO (even if the individual nations really don't want to on its own merit) would perhaps allow such a force to exist. However, the probability of all NATO nations agreeing to Ukrainian membership in NATO is even lower that some bilateral agreements being created. Even the US didn't support that before this war. Why would we now?

Last, a Ukrainian state based on current military positions is simply not viable. Ukraine was the poorest country in Europe before they lost access to the sea of Azov and the transportation network in the south and east of the country. It carried most of their trade. What remains would be much worse off even setting aside all the war damage to the rest of the country. Such an agreement would simply leave a situation that is not viable.  See Czechoslovakia in 1938 and what happened in spring of 1939. It may postpone the inevitable, but it will still be inevitable.