Yes, that would have been the optimal solution. But instead of leaving Ukraine alone, the US and the West pumped billions of dollars into building up Ukraine's military, increasing Ukraine's army from 6,000 in 2014 to 150,000 in 2019.

US Senators like Lindsey Graham and John McCain visited Ukraine many times, meeting with far right militias and saying things like "2017 is going to be the year of offense" and "Your fight is our fight" and "Russia has to pay".

Here is a Hill headline from 2014:

"McCain, Graham call for US to arm Ukrainians"

But US interference in Ukraine started long before 2014.

It started in 2004 with the so-called "Orange Revolution":

Here is a Guardian headline from 2004:

"US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev"

And here is Victoria Nuland explaining to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation Conference in 2013, on the eve of the Maidan Coup, how the US had invested $5 BILLION in Ukraine to prepare for the coup that they were organising, in order to install their own hand-picked government in Kiev.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article182080.html

So yes, we agree: the best solution would have been to leave Ukraine alone; allow it to remain neutral, and allow the Ukrainian people to elect their own leaders. But the US and the West had to use Ukraine as a proxy to "weaken Russia", as US defense secretary Austin admitted last year.