And we are once more touting our own mastery over events that are rather hard to master. The usual hawkish suspects are feeding the dream of a hopeless Ukrainian resistance. These figures are likely merely deepening the Ukrainian people’s pain, without altering the ultimate outcome of the conflict. And measures that could plausibly alter the outcome bear the unfortunate risk of bringing us close to the brink of all-out war with Moscow.
Perhaps that is what many Americans want. But those who are comfortable with the escalation cycle and think they’re prepared to accept the downsides might consider if they’re viewing events from deep inside an information trap.
I take this to mean that he advocated de-escalating and settling the crisis rather than pushing Ukrainians, however innocent or guilty, to the front to take the bullets for the arrogance of the hard-liner arm-chair generals
I don't think it is clear at all. He is stating his concerns, not stating with any clarity what specific actions he supports or opposes.
I take this to mean...
You wouldn't have to take anything to mean anything if the guy would simply get specific. Does he support economic sanctions? Does he support sharing intelligence? Does he support sending supplies? Does he support aiding Ukraine in any way at all??
We have no idea because he chose not to make his position clear despite the length of his article. He apparently thought it more important to talk about the Arab Spring, and post 9-11, and immigration, and Covid, than he did to provide a few specifics about the actual subject at hand.
People aren't vague unless it is deliberate.