>

Yes it is their call, which is why I'm saying as a friend of Ukraine, their people are getting baited into a forever conflict that will not end for like 10+ years or even a generation.  Ukraine is operating on emotion and hope, and that ultimately will be insufficient for total victory.  The nations providing aid are just prolonging the suffering by not giving them the weapons they need.
Therefore, Ukraine must begin the process of negotiation, which will include giving up the occupied territories.

This... isn't a negotiation or a compromise. This is a capitulation. Ukraine gains absolutely nothing, and in exchange gets a """peace treaty""" that's less than worthless. >

Semantics, Russia controls the territory they control, and Ukraine lacks the resources to recapture it, period.  I don't like it anymore than you probably do, but it is what it is, and we have to face the facts.  Ukraine is gaining something though, an end to this conflict and the survival of the Ukrainian Government and way of life (for what remains of their people).  They also might get back the people that were abducted and forced into Russia.  Ukraine could also arrange for China and a series of Governments to guarantee the integrity of the new border with Russia. >


Ukraine is gaining something though, an end to this conflict

Except they don't, literally nothing stops Russia from trying this again.

Ukraine might also arrange for China and a series of Governments to guarantee the integrity of the new border with Russia.

And why would Russia agree to that? >


And why would Russia agree to that?

Because Russia made a mistake starting this war, and if they can grasp something and call it a win and go home and lick their wounds, that is a good move for them too. >

Until they try again. >

Once the war is over we can provide Ukraine with many of the weapons we are afraid of providing for fear of nuclear escalation, but as long as fighting continues, we will never give them long range missiles or fighter jets ukraine needs to maintain their sovereignty in the long run. >

We really can't. Vast majority of Ukrainians are against territorial losses.
Their flat requirement so far has been all the land that they "annexed" which is about 15% of Ukraine.
Russian requirements for a peace treaty are-
- 15% of Ukraine
- Promising to never join NATO
- De-Nazification (it's quite obvious what this means, it means getting rid of Zelensky and instilling a pro-Russian president)
- De-Militarization 
Just to clarify. The requirement for promising to not invade again are that Ukraine give up land, promising to not join NATO, keeping a pro-Russian president, and getting rid of its military.
Getting rid of the military non-withstanding, any changes to these conditions are essentially a pretext for Russia to invade again, this time with a vaguely more concrete casus belli.
Russia has so far refused to budge on any of these. >

That's why we have elected representatives, so they can sometimes make decisions that the people disapprove of, and yet such people are entrusted with the sole authority.
Russia will not get all of their demands met in any treaty, that is for sure.  But Ukraine is unwilling to consider any territorial losses (they already lost them btw), so negotiated peace is impossible based on that one position alone.  Russia would likely budge on many points, including European Union membership if they were offered a way out of this war that doesn't include total defeat. >

In every communication so far that I've seen, the western countries want Ukraine to give up on some of their points, but it was Ukraine itself that refused.
Russia has explicitly stated that Ukraine joining the EU or NATO would be an existential crisis for them. This is why the war essentially started to begin with. Ukraine's previous pro-russian president was ousted by popular uprising. Now there is a staunchly pro-EU president who has popular support.
Ukraine would not be ok with Yanukovych being put back into power given his unpopularity and known corrupt policies. Russia would likely refuse any deal that doesn't see Yanukovych (or any pro-Russian leader) to be put into power. >

I have never seen that Ukraine joining the EU is absolutely a red line, NATO of course.  Russia thought this war would be easy, but it certainly is not.  Russia wants to find a peaceful settlement which allows them to keep the territory they have captured, but Ukraine cannot let them snatch victory like that at the negotiating table. >

Ukraine is an independent nation. If they said tomorrow that they wanted to give up part their territory to end the war their western allies would not stop them from doing so. They're being baited into nothing but supported in defending themselves against an unreasonable and unprovoked invasion as long as they have a desire to do so. >

I'm aware of this, which is why I'm saying Ukraine is getting baited by the drip of Western supplies, that do just enough to keep the Russians at bay and give some hope, but not enough to materially change the reality on the battlefield in Ukraine's favor so they can recapture Crimea and other territory.  You can't escape the fact Western supplies of weapons are simply insufficient to achieve total victory. >

Still their call. To bait somebody or something is to lure them into a situation they wouldn't voluntarily choose by trickery or taking advantage of a lack of ability or understanding. 
Ukraine knows, to the extent it's possible to know these things in a war, what resources are becoming available to them and what resources Russia is pitting against them. The nations providing aid are doing nothing wrong.