Why not a status quo ante bellum?
That would be equally “reasonable”
How about status quo ante Agreement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
The Ukes honored it, Russians didn’t. And we got Putinist pantywaist appeasers pushing for peace as a result.
A stalemate would bleed Putin. Can Ukraine rearm from the allies before being crushed?
On the other hand, if Putincan beat Ukraine over the next few weeks or months, then can he do it without laying the country and population to waste? Would there be an existing resistance that would bleed him dry?
These are the factors both parties need to consider.
“Why not a status quo ante bellum? That would be equally “reasonable.”
Yup.
...I am no expert in these matters, but..didn’t Russia take over Crimea some years back, and aren’t those two areas within the Donbass very heavily populated with Russian-speaking and Russian-oriented populations...? again, I am not taking the side of Russia, but, yes, reverting to the status quo ante bellum seems to be one way to end this horror....
status quo ante bellum —>
Why would Putin agree to this? His losses to this point are all sunk costs and he is on track belatedly to get exactly what he really wanted from the outset. From what I see, he will win the war.
The peace thereafter will be costly; but I do not see any evidence that he: 1) underestimated these costs going in or 2) will suffer as many costs as the talking heads are predicting. On the contrary, Biden has already committed the world to > $125/barrel oil. That alone makes for a very lucrative Russian peace, even if Putin has to sell his output in its entirety to China at a 20% discount to the world price.
Why not a status quo ante bellum?
That would be equally “reasonable”
—
Exactly.
That would be the more “fair” and “reasonable”.
Russia also then compensating for the damage and loss of life they caused by this temper tantrum would be even more “fair and reasonable”.