It’s not hopeless. Ukraine still has their country. For now. If the war continues maybe not.
I mean hopeless as in, there very likely won't be a better outcome for Ukraine if the war continues.
Thats the deal we made with them to give up their nukes
Perhaps they should receive security guarantees from their European neighbors this time.
Thats seeming to be the more reliable method I suppose. Would be nice if we could keep our word though, especially for something so important
Better wording would probably be a good idea.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia
"The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[2][52] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[51] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[52] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[53] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[54] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[24]"
------------
"American and Ukrainian officials did not foresee the Russo-Ukrainian War and because of that Ukraine was willing to accept security "assurances" from the U.S. and Britain, which unlike "guarantees," do not require the use of military force if the agreement was violated. Pifer also wrote that in his view it would have been unlikely that such guarantees would have been ratified by the U.S. Senate.[58]"