[Goose]

I'm not so pessimistic as Goose. It took Russia two months of focusing their combat power to take tens of miles of front line and some small towns, barely reducing Ukraine's significant salient in the Donbas, and smashing up lots of their best gear and troops to do it. And all the while Ukraine has been advancing, slowly but still, in the more important north and south. 


It's going to be a long war. If we didn't "dribble in" military aid (in actuality, provide more aid to an individual state since WW2) I suspect there would be a lot more Buchas and Irpins. There's no simple way of just stopping this war that avoids less bloodshed.

Naturally, I would say I am being realistic, not pessimistic :-). I am with Dabigv13 in that I believe that Ukraine really needs to win, mostly for themselves but also for "the West". This is an existential struggle for Ukraine. They were attacked. They had to fight or surrender. For us in the US, it is a "war of choice" in so far as it is a war for us. Our troops aren't getting killed. However, I strongly believe that we have a moral obligation to be upfront with Ukraine about what we will and won't do. We need to have a mutual plan that will plausibly end in Ukraine retaining it's territorial integrity. Obviously that is the goal the Ukraine has stated.

Since the beginning of this war my posts on this board have stressed the necessity of the US giving Ukraine what it needs to win, and if we can't do that we should tell them so. What I see us actually doing is responding to events as they happen instead of creating a plan to control events. Obviously Ukraine has been asking for HIMARS for a long time. My first post on that subject was on March 16th. On Feb 24th Russia controlled 60% of Luhansk. They now arguably control 97% of it. That is not a trivial gain for them. Ukraine has fought valiantly and inflicted heavy casualties on Russia in the process. It has been an expensive advance for Russia, but it has also been an expensive defensive battle for Ukraine. Ukraine became increasingly more strident in their request for long range weapons to counter Russian artillery superiority. Finally in late June they got what they should have had in early April. Lots of Ukrainians died that didn't have to, or at least could have died to better effect.

This was entirely predictable. Our actions have not, IMHO, made sense. Did we actually think that they didn't need long range weapons? If we are willing to give them now, why not then? If it turned out they didn't need them, what was the harm? If we feared what Putin would do, why do we not fear it now? In war, if you are constantly reacting to what the enemy does, you lose. Always.

Is there a plan in place that realistically could neutralize Russia's ability to continue this artillery based advance? I don't know, but given our countries actions, I fear the answer is no. I am sure that there are many such plans that COULD work, but is there one being implemented? Do both we and the Ukraine know what the plan is, or are we leaving Ukraine to kind of twist in the wind waiting to see what we will actually give them while they improvise something to defeat Russia? If so, we are behaving irresponsibly IMHO.

Ukraine may believe that at the end of the day we are going to do some particular action that will "save" them, and we have no intention of doing so. They may make decisions differently if they fully understand that. On the other hand, if we hold off aid that we actually intend to give later, Ukraine (and our DoD) will make decisions inappropriate to the "real" situation. Either way, irresponsible.

[Goose]

I'm not so pessimistic as Goose. It took Russia two months of focusing their combat power to take tens of miles of front line and some small towns, barely reducing Ukraine's significant salient in the Donbas, and smashing up lots of their best gear and troops to do it. And all the while Ukraine has been advancing, slowly but still, in the more important north and south. 


It's going to be a long war. If we didn't "dribble in" military aid (in actuality, provide more aid to an individual state since WW2) I suspect there would be a lot more Buchas and Irpins. There's no simple way of just stopping this war that avoids less bloodshed.

Naturally, I would say I am being realistic, not pessimistic :-). I am with Dabigv13 in that I believe that Ukraine really needs to win, mostly for themselves but also for "the West". This is an existential struggle for Ukraine. They were attacked. They had to fight or surrender. For us in the US, it is a "war of choice" in so far as it is a war for us. Our troops aren't getting killed. However, I strongly believe that we have a moral obligation to be upfront with Ukraine about what we will and won't do. We need to have a mutual plan that will plausibly end in Ukraine retaining it's territorial integrity. Obviously that is the goal the Ukraine has stated.

Since the beginning of this war my posts on this board have stressed the necessity of the US giving Ukraine what it needs to win, and if we can't do that we should tell them so. What I see us actually doing is responding to events as they happen instead of creating a plan to control events. Obviously Ukraine has been asking for HIMARS for a long time. My first post on that subject was on March 16th. On Feb 24th Russia controlled 60% of Luhansk. They now arguably control 97% of it. That is not a trivial gain for them. Ukraine has fought valiantly and inflicted heavy casualties on Russia in the process. It has been an expensive advance for Russia, but it has also been an expensive defensive battle for Ukraine. Ukraine became increasingly more strident in their request for long range weapons to counter Russian artillery superiority. Finally in late June they got what they should have had in early April. Lots of Ukrainians died that didn't have to, or at least could have died to better effect.

This was entirely predictable. Our actions have not, IMHO, made sense. Did we actually think that they didn't need long range weapons? If we are willing to give them now, why not then? If it turned out they didn't need them, what was the harm? If we feared what Putin would do, why do we not fear it now? In war, if you are constantly reacting to what the enemy does, you lose. Always.

Is there a plan in place that realistically could neutralize Russia's ability to continue this artillery based advance? I don't know, but given our countries actions, I fear the answer is no. I am sure that there are many such plans that COULD work, but is there one being implemented? Do both we and the Ukraine know what the plan is, or are we leaving Ukraine to kind of twist in the wind waiting to see what we will actually give them while they improvise something to defeat Russia? If so, we are behaving irresponsibly IMHO.

Ukraine may believe that at the end of the day we are going to do some particular action that will "save" them, and we have no intention of doing so. They may make decisions differently if they fully understand that. On the other hand, if we hold off aid that we actually intend to give later, Ukraine (and our DoD) will make decisions inappropriate to the "real" situation. Either way, irresponsible.