Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.
One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.
Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.
As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it
Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.
Or Afghanistan was a 20 year, several thousand US troops died, trillion dollar project that ended up being in vain as the local population didn’t care if the Taliban was in charge or not vs Ukraine a 3 year war, no U.S. troop death project for a country that actually wants to fight the enemy. But why worry about details when you can do a fake virtual signal like a douche
Well a hell of a lot more than "several thousand people" have gotten killed here and Russia's certainly not
worse than the Taliban, so the moral calculus doesn't make any sense. If anything you could argue the other way around: taking relatively light casualties to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan would be worth it but with hundreds of thousands getting killed in Ukraine the war needs to end as quickly as possible to stop loss of life on that scale even if it means a non optimum outcome. Or you could support both or be opposed to both, but not do what you guys are doing.
The rhetoric is just so much tougher here from the left than for any other armed conflict I can think of, usually you just want to roll over and let the aggressor push everyone around because you're so afraid of war. We have a guy arguing on the second page that the US should be willing to
get nuked for Ukraine. So a few thousand soldiers dying to stop the Taliban is too much but hundreds of thousands or even millions dying for Ukraine is ok.