Did Foreign Affairs Give Up on Ukraine?

 Vox notes that Foreign Affairs publishes an off-ramp scenario, which tells you that they get it:  Ukraine cannot win.

...An endgame premised on an armistice would leave Ukraine—at least temporarily—without all its territory. But the country would have the opportunity to recover economically, and the death and destruction would end. It would remain locked in a conflict with Russia over the areas occupied by Moscow, but that conflict would play out in the political, cultural, and economic domains, where, with Western support, Ukraine would have advantages. The successful reunification of Germany, in 1990, another country divided by terms of peace, demonstrates that focusing on nonmilitary elements of the contestation can produce results. Meanwhile, a Russian-Ukrainian armistice would also not end the West’s confrontation with Russia, but the risks of a direct military clash would decrease dramatically, and the global consequences of the war would be mitigated.

Many commentators will continue to insist that this war must be decided only on the battlefield. But that view discounts how the war’s structural realities are unlikely to change even if the frontline shifts, an outcome that itself is far from guaranteed. The United States and its allies should be capable of helping Ukraine simultaneously on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. Now is the time to start....

Hmmm.  Vox has his doubts about some of the comparatives brought up in the essay, but does NOT doubt that this is a signal from far-wiser people than Nuland, Liiinnnnnnnnndssseeeeeeey!!, and other war-mongers that it's over.