In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.
Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.
Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.
Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing
Synthesis on Ukraine
"The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries"He points out that Ukraine is divided between "the west largely Catholic" and "speaking Ukrainian" vs "the east largely Russian Orthodox" and "speaking Russian"Consequently "any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other would lead eventually to civil war or break up"This divide means that "to treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system"He therefore advises the following: "A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction"He is also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO"He also advises Russia that it "would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself" and that "a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War”