I fully agree w/ you about NATO's obviously non-altruistic motivations for fuelling the war but I think the Ukrainian position itself has to be considered in the whole conflagration. Without that, we cannot really analyse when and how the war might end. For Ukrainians it's not the case they're being forced or deceived into fighting, it is a war of national survival! It is a war against an aggressor seeking to at the very least oppress Ukrainian national identity if not destroy it entirely as a political and social force. Even without western support the Ukrainians would have fought and Russia wouldn't have won straight away (because they already had a fair few weapons and the west had spent 8 years already reforming and rebuilding the army from 2014 onwards). The thing to remember is that urban combat is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for the attacker. To put it into context, a city the size of Kyiv has not been taken by an enemy against a committed defender since WW2! Taking a city the size of Kyiv or bigger, no battle lasting longer than 8 days (one of the battles for Seoul) has been won by the attacker. Consider the defences being set up for the capital-vast networks of local militia, booby traps and tank traps, every building and every basement being turned into a place for fighting. Russia would have to take this huge city street by street, building by building. This is an incredibly difficult feat. While Russia would obviously be doing a lot better without western arming, the war would still be going on and would be no less bloody. Even Mariupol and especially Bakhmut have been extremely difficult for both sides, Kyiv would be a whole new level, especially since it's the capital.

Then after that there'd still be the whole western half of the country where troops can, at the border, slip into Poland/Romania when needed. There are so many big cities in Ukraine that if they were committed to defending it, taking over the whole country would be insanely difficult. As I say, a committed defender has not lost an urban battle in a city the size of Kyiv since, like, the Battle of Berlin in WW2. It would require a total societal commitment to the war in Russia which Russians are not willing to tolerate. The current Russian Army is not up to the task!

Let's imagine, though, that the end of western support did bring about an impulse for peace within the current leadership. What do you think happens if Zelensky signs a peace deal that gives up land? He, a Russian-speaking Jew who used to be on Russian TV and regularly went to the country. He would be deemed a Russian traitorous Jew and would be overthrown and possibly killed by the nationalist and far-right elements within the Ukrainian Army who have gathered disproportionate strength relative to the actual support for fascist politics in the country since 2014 because of Russia's (yes, and NATO's) actions. Then the war would continue anyway, but likely with far less restraint against Russian-speaking citizens and Russian soldiers.

So at the minute there honestly is NO ROUTE TO PEACE because of the internal dynamics in Ukrainian politics both because the population believes the war is winnable and is committed at all costs to fight for their survival against the aggressor, and because there are spoilers within the Ukrainian state + army that have enough power to effectively 'veto' it. It is impossible to conceive of peace until there is a mutually hurting stalemate between the two sides in which neither believe they can win and in which both are deeply hurting in the status quo such that the value of continuing war is no longer high enough to justify the suffering. We are not there yet, so whether or not the west arms them is quite beside the point. Indeed, if anything it'd bolster Russia and make them less likely to make concessions for peace. Not that I'm supporting this that or the other arming of far-right militias (I believe any armaments should explicitly exclude Azov and such), but I do not believe the logic of bringing about peace held by many of my fellow Hexbears is correct.