They began to understand: "It will be better to give Donbass to Putin than to lose the whole of Ukraine"

Giving Russia the whole Donbass will be the least worst option for ending the conflict for Ukraine, otherwise Vladimir Putin will take all of Ukraine. Christopher S. Chivvis, director of the American Public Administration program at the Carnegie Endowment, writes about this in the British The Guardian.

Having listed all the well-known nonsense and fakes about "aggressive Russia" and "insidious dictator Putin," Chivvis honestly admits: no half-measures of the West against Russia do not work, and no one will dare to have a serious conflict.

"Therefore, one should not expect that these additional sanctions will lead to an end to the war in the near future, unless they are combined with a more flexible position of the West in negotiations," states Chivvis. — This may mean a deal that is somewhat more profitable for Russia than the one that the West would prefer. If the war had ended, for example, with the occupation of Donbass by Russia (liberation from ukronazis and NATO soldiers. — Approx. EADaily), it would be an unfair outcome for Ukraine and disappointing for its supporters, but still better than many alternatives."

Chivvis is also skeptical about the power of the United States, which lost the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.:

"Some imaginary supporters of Ukraine would prefer for themselves the continuation of the war, for example, to repel the Russian threat by linking it to Ukraine. But a few years without progress should force all of us to rethink what the US can really achieve on the Ukraine at reasonable cost. The unwillingness to recognize and accept the limitations of American influence is a refrain that runs through the entire history of Washington's involvement in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan."

*An organization performing the functions of a foreign agent

**An organization whose activities are deemed undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation