Putin Needs an Off Ramp

One of the challenges is that there probably is no way to undo the sanctions/Russian reactions to the sanctions. Sanctions started rewriting supply chains from the moment they went into effect. This could mostly be undone now, but the longer they are in place, the more permanent the rewrites become.

The Russian reaction also prevents a lot of capital from returning. They are talking about seizing assets, openly defaulting on bonds (rouble payments at the official exchange rate), have indefinitely closed the stock market, and seem set to start printing roubles. They will remain "uninvestable" to Westerners, as their risk profile has permanently changed.

The main reason I thought Russia's invasion of Ukraine wouldn't cross the line of being a convincing threat was how little off ramps it left everyone involved. It's going to be hard to come up with an off ramp for Putin that is also remotely acceptable to the Ukrainian people.

>President Volodymyr Zelensky might be prepared to formally renounce his pursuit of NATO membership

If Ukrainians feel they have convincingly defended themselves against Russia that might be possible. However, in 1994 Russia signed a Treaty promising not to use military force or economic coercion against Ukraine as a condition for Ukraine giving up it's nukes. With that and the last decade in mind Ukraine is unlikely to consider a signed paper sufficient safety. Outside of NATO's nuclear umbrella they'll need a military defense strong enough to defend against Russia on it's own.

>The difficulty comes with compromises that are not fair. Why should Ukraine not seek EU or NATO membership?

Ukrainians were divided between wanting to align more with EU or more with Russia but by trying to force Ukraine not to join EU through indiscriminate bombing Putin turned a bureaucratic process into an act of defiance against tyranny. Staying out of NATO is one thing but I don't think it's going to be politically possible to tell Ukraine they can't join EU.

One of the tenents of Big Stick ideology [1] is allowing your adversary the ability to save face in defeat. On the other hand there is the adage that you are never supposed to interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.

While I think it is possible, is giving Putin an out the best long term option? Putin is a constant belligerent and thorn to the west. Would allowing his collapse be a long term win? Should we "refuse to negotiate with the Bolsheviks" again?

If putin is really this weak and the military really is this deflated; now might be the most opportunistic time to bring russia under western influence.

At least during the cold War the competition benefited both sides. Russia is in no position to start another R&D war with the west. We won that 40 years ago.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology#:~:text=B...

One obvious off Ramp is someone offing Putin and putting all of the blame squarely on a mad man betraying his country for personal reasons.

The West needs an offramp.

Russia will achieve its objectives. China, India, Brazil, Iran (which just openly attacked a US/Israeli base in Northern Iraq), and 17 African nations are more or less ignoring Western sanctions.

The West has humiliated itself again by showing that it is an unreliable economic partner and that its value as a military ally is negative.

The West is busily cutting off the branch it's sitting on.