It is relevant to the discussion. The thing with the "History is replete with small countries forcing large ones to withdraw" requires historical nuance and background. You can't merely throw out "well, the Americans forced the British to withdraw" without going through the context and the historical specifics.

Only if the historical specifics and context are relevant to the point of comparison. To give a trivial example, the British had muskets and the Russians have automatic rifles - but both you and I would agree that's not really germane to the question of whether the military strategy works.

The fact that the French contributed soldiers as well as guns is less trivial, but still a difference that isn't relevant to the point of comparison. They supplied troops, but the troops they supplied were never enough to let the Americans dislodge the British - just to keep the Continental Army an effective fighting force. The Ukrainians have enough troops to be an effective fighting force. So the fact that NATO isn't supplying troops and the French did doesn't negate the comparison.

(a) Make the Russians bleed enough to withdraw from the territory they've occupied?
(b) Do it quickly enough so that we don't exhaust all our supplies in case we need them elsewhere?
(c) Do it quickly enough so that we minimize civilian casualties and infrastructure damage?

(a)-(c) are the problems to be solved. There is a time element to all this that can't be waved away.

You can't do a, b, and c. Those aren't choices. There's no way to win this fast - one has to choose between winning slow or losing quick. You can make the Russians bleed enough to withdraw from the territory they've occupied, but it can't be done quickly (absent NATO invading Russia or some other unrealistically risky move, which I don't think you support). Or you can give them Ukraine - either all at once or in pieces. If Russia is allowed to keep what they've stolen, then there's no stopping them from taking the rest.

That's why I asked you the question upthread that you didn't answer - what have you proposed (other than secondary sanctions on our allies) that you think the U.S. could do, which anyone on this board has pushed back on? What's the "win fast" method you think people here are rejecting?