The simple answer is that the people in most countries do not want parts of their land to be invaded and occupied by another country.
Yes. I am not saying (as some I know are) that Ukraine should give up those territories and go for “easy peace”, enabling Europe to buy Russian gas again 
They rightly want to throw Russia out of their country – even if that is not militarily possible anytime soon.
However I think it is a bit more complex:
It may well be that Ukraine will have to give up some of the East, and Crimea (whose occupation was de facto accepted by the West without any action), in return for a package including immediate NATO membership, and a possible EU membership to fund reconstruction.
Pretty much to the point Peter.
But even if Ukraine gives up Donbass and Crimea, Russia will not let them go to NATO and NATO can’t grant them access as long as they are at war. I think the very threat of that would cause Russia to continue the war ad infinitum if need be.
And there is another dangerous thought on that: Nobody can enter NATO while at war. So how does one keep Sweden and Finland out of NATO? I am sure Russia is thinking about that very carefully at the moment.
Peter wrote:
The fighting in the east is tying down much of the Russian army (which is resource-limited) making life easier elsewhere and making counter-offensives feasible there.
Which might be very useful indeed seeing what else Russia considers as possible attack goals.
Peter wrote:
In theory, yes – Article 5.
In practice, nobody can be quite sure, and that’s why UK and France have their own nuclear deterrent.
Was it only in 2001 when Article 5 was triggered?
At least then it was used once.
However I have some doubts if it would be activated in case of “not so important” countries are being attacked.
It’s more of an ironical illustration than a real example, but technically the below example could have been initiated a joint declaration of war on Ukraine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Zagreb_Tu-141_crash
It is entirely possible to throw Russia out of Ukraine militarily. If just takes the decision to do it and that decision hasn’t been made yet. The same goes for any other country Russia might choose to invade in the future, and Putin knows it.
No country is actually constrained by international agreements if it decides not to be. You can wrap any kind of organizational construct around it to make it pretty, NATO, EU or whatever but what contains Russia is the threat of a single country with sufficient resources deciding to overwhelm the Russian military, whatever it takes. The rest is just sugar coating.
Peter wrote:
And end of the war will create a lot of pressure to end Russian sanctions, especially because of the gas situation.
That I think might be determined by how long the war goes on. Some are saying it could continue for years. If it is more than 12-18 months, then I think most economies will have transitioned away from Russian fuels (and made very significant transition to renewables) and the pressure to buy Russian fuels will have subsided.
Remember that Europe was looking to have largely transitioned to renewables by 2030. This war has accelerated that.
If just takes the decision to do it and that decision hasn’t been made yet
They do need a lot more hardware though.
most economies will have transitioned away from Russian fuels
It is impossible to get enough from wind power. One needs nuclear, coal, or gas. Hydro and tidal are not options for most. The 2030 year was just for PR; one of many 
And Russia’s pipeline will still be there, so eager customers will come back as soon as politically acceptable.
@Peter, I wasn’t suggesting that Ukraine can or will throw Russia out of their country quickly or easily, only that some other individual country might decide to do so based on principle if Russia continues to present itself as a threat to the world as a whole. It doesn’t actually take endless discussion and UN, NATO or EU politics to do it, only a decision by one country with the necessary power, the level of which is diminishing as Ukraine wears them down. The Ukrainians would welcome the help and the rest of the world would watch. Time will tell.
Silvaire wrote:
I wasn’t suggesting that Ukraine can or will throw Russia out of their country quickly or easily, only that some other individual country might decide to do so based on principle if Russia continues to present itself as a threat to the world as a whole
The only country with that potential alone, is the USA. But they don’t see the need. I think the US see this as a ‘gift horse’. They get to deplete the Russia military down to a spent force, without risking nuclear war, and without any battle on US soil, and without any body bags coming back to the US.
They have no reason to get involved with the Ukrainian’s will do the fighting for them. In some respects the longer it goes on the better for US objectives. A long war, slowly waring down the Russians will do more damage to the Russian military capabilities than a quick decisive victory (which would leave much of their military never having seen the battlefield).
Obviously a quick decisive victory would be much better for the Ukrainians but it’s not an option that they can make.
Everyone involved, on all sides, have their own agenda and self interests.
The US tends to pursue intervention in overseas conflict on a strategic basis that factors in world stability, world trade and world commodity prices. Extended conflict and destruction in the Ukraine affects all those things and the strength of the Russian military in itself does not. OTOH the current non-intervention of US forces directly does take into account things like this, taken 5 minutes ago over West Texas , not Russia.
