We knew Russia would take Kyiv in a weekend. Then we knew they would do it within a week. Then we knew that despite their initial setbacks they would achieve their goals in a month. Then we knew that their goal wasn't to topple the Ukrainian government at all, and they would achieve everything else in a few months. Then we knew that they would take full control of the eastern regions in under six months.

Now eight months later they are down to barely holding on to some fringe regions despite mobilizing the entire country, and Ukraine is taking back control of major cities daily. So I question what we all "know".

There is precedent for nuclear powers losing wars in the sense of them having to withdrawal from quagmires without accomplishing their initial objectives.

At this point, Russia can't win, they can only choose how badly they want to lose.

Safety and self-determination is what everyone should want.

Peace between nations is only part of the picture. Peace between people and their government is another part.

We could all have world peace between nations tomorrow if every nation capitulated to Russia. But you’d have endless tension between the people and their new Russian authorities.

Giving aggressors what they stole is not going to achieve peace, it's going achieve more aggression.

If you're going to give up something just because someone else has a nuke, then you'll end up giving them everything you have, because they're not going to give up their nukes. They will always have power over you.

Chamberlain had a similar goal at Munich. "Peace for our time," he declared.

If someone punches you in the face then says they simply want peace right after, does that make them a criminal or should you just let bygones be bygones?

The narrative that it's interested in an end to the conflict. It's still entertaining Ukraine's application to NATO which would mean World War 3. Everything I see is NATO escalating, rather than de-escalating.

Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs said the same on Bloomberg yesterday.