In reply to VikkiDp :
While I recognize that analyzing this situation from the outside, as I will try to do here, rather than experiencing it from the inside, as you are, does not address the real sufferings of war, but perhaps I can try to at least offer some attempt at a logical explanation for Russia's actions.
The problem that Putin faces is a Russia in decline: falling population, weak economy (in the long term, the core of its foreign trade - oil and gas - are going to soften, and there's nothing they can do about it), and a population that can either be educated and become more productive, or be loyal to the regime, but not both. Sustaining power requires support, or at least acquiescence, and on the domestic face of it, there's little reason for the Russian people to back Putin.
History and foreign policy are the secret weapon of totalitarians. With an ignorant populace and control of the media, it is possible, even easy, to craft a new narrative that serves the purpose of distracting the people from the failures of the regime, and redirecting them to foreign enemies and agents, who are blamed for undermining the efforts of the government. Thus, the Russian people are suffering because of these foreign powers, rather than the failings of the Putin government. This is compounded by a selective reading of history (again possible because of an ignorant, uneducated populace) to show that this hostility is not new, and that Russia is a martyr state, victim of irrational foreign hatreds that as such cannot be reasoned with and can only be opposed with strength and force.
Additionally, the core of this logic is economic. As a state with limited resources, Russia has to use them efficiently, and the simple fact is that a war in Ukraine has a better cost-benefit ratio than anything Putin could achieve with the same resources peacefully and domestically. Cynical as it may be, given the primary interests of the Russian government - maintaining power in a declining state - this war has been cheap and effective, in part because the West has played into Putin's hands. The more vocal Western leaders are, the more Putin can point to how Russia's enemies are circling, and how only he can protect the Russian people.
As far as negotiations, the problem is not that Putin cannot be trusted; he can't be, but then, neither can any other leader facing a similarly dangerous set of domestic circumstances. A settlement in Ukraine is possible, but not in the sense that Russia and Ukraine will reconcile their differences and become friendly, but rather that both sides reach a point where the costs of continuing to fight outweigh the costs of accepting less than they want.
It is very possible for two hostile countries with unresolved ideological and territorial claims to stop shooting at each other - just look at North and South Korea. But for such a peace to be sustainable, both sides need to be able to defend their position to the extent that the cost of resuming war is greater than the cost of maintaining peace. This would require continued foreign support for Ukraine, obviously, but also the sort of conditions that allow Russia to maintain a domestic narrative of success. Put another way, if Ukraine reclaims all the territory Russia has taken, the war will not end, because Putin will have no way to plausibly declare that he has led Russia to victory; if Russia holds on to what it has now, give or take, it can be spun as establishing an "anti-fascist security zone" to protect the Russian people or something similar, even if Ukraine ends up economically stronger, armed to the teeth, and with steadfast Western support.
I know it's not what anyone in Ukraine or any of its supporters want to hear, but barring major shifts on the battlefield, which I don't consider likely in the next year or so, this will either continue to grind on, or it will end with a settlement that gives up some territory in exchange for a more sustainable defensive position, oriented toward the West, and focused on the future rather than the past. Again, look at Korea. The North clings to the narrative of hostility and territorial claims to maintain power, but no one in the South is talking about reclaiming territory or reuniting the peninsula; they are talking about building the economy, raising the standard of living, trading with the world, and developing new technology, as well as defending what they have built. They have accepted that the net benefit of an imperfect peace is the better outcome.
