Interesting article but it fails to look at the real alternatives to a negotiated settlement.

Ukraine faces complete destruction of all its infrastructure and the wipe-out of its male population between 16 and 60 (who were all called up) and are being industrially slaughtered by the hundreds (up to 600 per day) every day.

From an army that numbers over 600,000 before the invasion and well over 1 million after the mass call up, Ukraine now fields less than 190,000 effective troops.

After invading with far too few troops (~150k) to conquer any large city or even hold the large areas it took early with little opposition, Russia has now massively increased its force numbers to well over 500k, maybe 750k with Belorussian troops, militia's and mercs.

Russia is also luring Ukraine into wasting large numbers of troops and equipment in killing fields in vainly trying to reinforce Bakhmut and other indefensible positions that any sensible general would have withdrawn from already.

People often say that Russia isn't advancing (much) or that its a stalemate.

This completely fails to understand how a war of attrition works. The side with the vastly larger resources just keeps attriting the forces of the weaker side while minimising its own casualties.

Eventually there are insufficient forces left on the weaker side and the stronger side can just take over the whole place with no opposition.

Russia is excellent at wars of attrition - it is how they defeated the qualitatively superior Nazi forces.

The alternative to a negotiated settlement is the complete destruction of Ukraine and the creation of an experienced, blooded and bloodthirsty million man Russian army ready to do the same to NATO.