"More military equipment for Zelensky may mean incursions in Russian territory, even via long range cruise missiles"

Considering that military aid is contingent on it not being used on targets in Russia, this is an unlikely prospect. And assuming Zelensky would risk such escalation is to assume that he's either very stupid or very crazy.

"On the future of NATO. Go back to the past and check what happened in Serbia, Iraq, Syria and Libya."

You're conflating U.S. intervention with NATO policy. And what happened was NATO became involved to support pro-independence, pro-democratic movements. And in both Libya and Serbia, the result was the ouster of a totalitarian regimes.

NATO was not involved in Iraq beyond sending advisors to help train security forces. Chomsky's opinions notwithstanding, he's a far-left ideologue with an extreme slant.

And the idea that NATO wants war is pure ideology. Sachs is yet another apologist figure, someone with a long history of defending China, Russia, and other totalitarians.

"The best role the USA could play NOW would be negotiating PEACE. Like Kennedy did."

Except that Russia has repeatedly refused to entertain any peace deals. The very idea they would allow the U.S. to mediate is asinine, and they've rejected efforts mounted by Turkey, South Africa, Egypt, Senegal, Congo-Brazzaville, Comoros, Zambia, and Uganda.

Any comparison to the Cuban Missile Crisis is also misguided. That crisis was a direct matter between the U.S. and Russia and it was made possible by the fact that all sides wanted to avoid nuclear escalation. This conflict is not one the U.S, has a deciding stake in, no matter what certain people say about it being a "proxy war."

//A propos "winning", your article doesn't define it in an operational mode.//

It's simple, really. Russia withdraws and formally recognizes Kyiv's government. It's not rocket science, and I am aware of what "some" argue. They've been arguing complete nonsense from the beginning, predicting Kyiv would fall in three days, that the disaster there was actually a Russian "feint," that the counter-offensive wasn't successful, that Bakhmut was a "turning point," that NATO forces are there and taking heavy losses, and that Russia is winning through attrition and the number of shells fired.

They've been consistently wrong for a year and a half now yet still persist in arguing that reality isn't real and that all demonstrable victories by Ukrainians mean nothing. The only people "fooled" are those who believe them.

You've already mentioned Mersheimer, and other people who share your views. The name dropping doesn't help if you or they can't articulate arguments that are backed up by facts on the ground.