>>52504
It would be a huge difference between a ceasefire now and a ceasefire in one or two years.
In previous posts I mentioned that I think Russia want to close this down once and for all. Take everything that is strategically important for them (such as Odessa from Odessa the whole Russian Black Sea shipping can be endangered, Crimea is not secure without securing Odessa) and neuter Ukraine, keep her out of NATO, perhaps DMZ, whatever. This doesn't mean Ukraine has to officially surrender, sign annexation papers and whatnot. Can be done without.
I still think (and how I mentioned before) that at one point - when Ukraine defences collapse and the Ukrainian army start to break apart, units deserting en masse and such - NATO (or parts of NATO, as representatives of EU, first and foremost Poland) will move into Ukraine, citing a humanitarian crisis, and create a "safety zone" in western Ukraine, to manage Ukrainians fleeing into the EU. Russia doesn't want Western Ukraine anyway where a huge chunk of the population is openly hostile, and would just be a pain in the ass. So this NATO intervention would avoid a confrontation with Russia.
It would be like a Korea, where technically they are still at war with each other. And things would be settled according to Moscow.
But this still needs a lot of time. A ceasfire right now would create a situation where reigniting the conflict would be possible for the Westerners.