I have meant to write about this for almost a week, but for some reason, I haven't gotten to it. 

It might have something to do with every damn day bringing a new crisis and that the news cycle is about 30 seconds to a minute. There isn't enough time in the day to cover every important story, But this one is sufficiently important to take it off the back burner and write a bit about it. 

You may not remember, given all that has happened over the past few weeks which have been packed with about 10 years of news, but there is a nasty war going on in Eastern Europe with which we are deeply involved. 

A war that for a year or so seemed destined to bring about a clash between NATO and Russia and that by the grace of God has remained a proxy war instead of a direct conflict. 

You know, that war. 

Well, The New York Times had a story last week about a shift in the mood in Ukraine, with ordinary Ukrainian citizens and even some government leaders making noise about finding an exit from the seemingly unending conflict over a few miles of territory. 

Thousands of people are dying with no end in sight, impoverishing the country, breaking families apart, and undermining the economy of an already poor country. Elections have been called off, men are being kidnapped off the streets and sent to become cannon fodder, and neither side is making progress toward their goals. 

Finally war fatigue is setting in. 

In mid-July, a survey by the Ukrainian independent media outlet ZN.UA found that about 44 percent of Ukrainian civilians favored starting official talks with Russia. On July 23, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology released a poll showing that nearly a third of Ukrainians would agree to cede some territory to Russia to end the war. That’s more than three times as many as the year before.

Nadia Ivashchenko, 28, a railway signal operator from the central Kirovohrad region, said she couldn’t describe a good peace settlement. But her husband has been fighting in the army since Russia invaded in February 2022, and the couple has a 5-year-old son who hasn’t seen his father in years.

“So many people died, and what for?” Ms. Ivashchenko said. “But I want everything to be finished, at least somehow, because I have a son, and I don’t want him to grow up in such a wartime as now.”

As you can see, majority opinion is still in favor of the war, but not by much, and the trend is moving in one direction: it's time to find a resolution. 

Western countries, so far, have signaled their willingness to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, and I can understand at an intellectual level why. Russia is seen as an adversary, and Putin has been wasting men and equipment bashing his military against a reasonably well-armed Ukrainian military backed by the US and NATO. Ukraine isn't a part of NATO, and the main reason to seek peace is to save lives, and that apparently isn't a good enough reason to seek it. 

In the abstract, I agree that Russia is the aggressor and in an ideal war its military would be pushed back to the status quo ante. While I don't have an idealistic view of Ukraine, which is corrupt and illiberal, I have a lower opinion of Russia and Putin. All other things being equal, Ukraine has the better argument in my view. 

But then there are the needless deaths over essentially no territory and the obvious fact that the status quo ante is not likely to be achieved at an acceptable cost. 

Ongoing support from the West seems unpredictable, especially if Donald J. Trump regains the White House in November. Germany will cut military aid for Ukraine in half if its proposed budget for 2025 is adopted; that is seen as a bellwether for Western commitment, especially after the six-month delay in the United States for a military-aid package delivered this spring.

International pressure is building on Ukraine and Russia to come to some kind of agreement, although experts agree neither side is ready. The barriers to any settlement are huge: Russia occupies about 18 percent of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, according to DeepState, an analytical group with close ties to Ukraine’s army.

Russia wants to keep the territory it has claimed, which includes Crimea and some of Eastern Ukraine in which ethnic Russians dominate the population. Crimea isn't going back to Ukraine in the foreseeable future, and while the other territory may be recoverable, it won't be at a reasonable cost to anybody. Russia's claims to the territory are hardly ironclad, but they aren't absurd either. There are a lot of Russians there and the borders were drawn kinda arbitrarily, as they often are. 

That doesn't justify the invasion, of course. It is just a recognition of the current reality. 

The bigger sticking point I believe is NATO membership for Ukraine, and I cannot see a strategic argument for why NATO would want to include Ukraine under its military (and nuclear) umbrella. We gain nothing of value and assume a lot of risk. 

All risk, no benefit. Why do it?

If a deal can be had a deal should be made. Ukrainians are dying for nothing--the West will tire of this war--and if Germany is any indication it already has. Russia will not invade Europe through Ukraine and frankly is probably too war-weary to pick a fight with us any time soon. Any settlement in Ukraine will change the strategic situation not at all. The Baltic states, which are members of NATO, are no more or less vulnerable because of Ukraine's situation. 

A deal should be done, and should be made soon.