The logical conclusion of this is that we should always just surrender whenever some other army comes knocking at our door. Let Putin walk all the way to Portugal, let Kim Jong Un walk to the south tip of the Korean peninsula, because any peace deal, no matter how bad, is always better than firing a single shot.
Putin invaded Crimea and then said "I'm done". Then by proxy he invaded the Donbas, and said "I'm done". Then he invaded Ukraine. Why do you think that if we sign a peace deal with him, that he just won't build up his forces in another year or two and invade again -- either Ukraine, or one of the other Baltic countries?
At some point you have to say, "It stops here".
EDIT: Furthermore, you have to think of the knock-on effects. If we settle now in Ukraine, that won't stop war with Russia: Putin has learned that invading your neighbor is fine, and he'll do it again and again. Xi and Kim will learn the same thing, and there will be wars in Taiwan and Korea.
On the other hand, Russia is almost defeated -- another 2 years and they'll be completely out of materiel. They're already resorting to pulling in North Korean troops. Support Ukraine for another year or two, and the war will end for good -- and Xi and Kim will learn that invading your neighbor is a losing proposition, and war in Taiwan and Korea will be avoided.
> You need to understand that played a big role.
Do you have any support for this statement? I haven't heard many people bring up Ukraine as a major reason for voting Trump or not voting Harris.
Ironically, there were Arabs and progressives who failed to support Harris because she supported Israel too much, and there are Zionist Jews and Christians who support Trump because they think Kamala didn't support Israel enough. On that particular conflict I don't think there's any winning position for the Democrats.