[Goose]

From my view point there remain a lot of problems with how support the Ukraine is being handled.

1.  I don't see there supply of Russian designed aircraft lasting forever.  Is there some source for replacement aircraft and parts?  If not why do we keep kicking the can down the road in terms of getting started training them in some sort of decent NATO aircraft?

It is entirely possible there are training efforts in progress right now that are not public. I give this at least 50/50 odds. As I said before, Ukraine has no viable training pipeline for it's existing planes because 1) they are all committed to the fight, 2) there is no "safe" place in Ukraine to train (the weather also sucks in winter) and 3) pilots sometimes survive getting shot down, jets almost never do. They probably already have more pilots than they can use. Doing training in the US for the "next gen" Ukrainian pilots makes complete sense even if we aren't giving them the planes right now. I dearly hope we are doing the training. I also hope we are making contingency plans to provide them jets. A competent military force would be doing that even if it wasn't "for sure" we would ever do it.

2.  HIMARS has been a life saver but they need more longer range artillery, at least from what I read.  I presume at this point we are eating into our own stores and don't to go much further.  Is there any prospect of any other NATO country outside of the USA being able to provide a reasonable number of longer range guns, or is everyone scrapping the bottom of the barrel?

Longer range guns have been "out of style" for years. I doubt any NATO country has much bigger than 155mm and if they do they are in questionable shape, small numbers, and poorly supplied with ammunition. FWIW, I think the Ukrainian "need" for "long range artillery" is really somewhat psychological and overblown. They don't like getting pounded by missiles and want to hit back. They (legitimately) want to take the entire Russian logistics chain under fire. They also dearly want to hit Russian targets in Crimea, particularly the bridge. While these things all would help, and maybe help a lot, they are not "war winners".

It would be real nice if the US could just give Ukraine ATACMS. It is worthy of note that other nations purchased ATACMS. Korea even manufactures them under license. These aren't the "latest and greatest" but do give the HIMARS longer (300km) reach. That would be a potential "compromise" in that the Ukrainians would get M39A1s (rather than M57E1). The US no longer has the ability to manufacture ATACMS. The US is transitioning to the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) with IOC expected in 2023. Given that, expending the existing ATACMS we have shouldn't be a significant issue. They are effectively obsolete in US service. Just make sure we build PrSMs faster :-). Obviously, this is a political football. Terry rule prevents further analysis.

3.  Does the Ukraine have an adequate source of Russian type infantry weapons and ammunition?  I believe back around 2017 we looked at maybe making our own supply of Russian infantry ammunition etc.

Pretty sure small arms and ammunition isn't a problem. Lots of it available in the world and I believe several somewhat friendly countries still make it. If Ukraine had to transition to NATO weapons, I think that could also be accommodated.

4.  Last Question - How significant an impact are Western Sanctions making it for Russia?

Economic sanctions are above my pay grade. I assume they are causing problems, possibly serious ones, but I just don't know. I think the technical embargo is giving Russia fits. I just hope we are aggressively defeating their attempts to subvert it. Historically, we have been just "OK" at that, and in this case we need to be much better than that. Make sure they can't build any precision guided weapons.

Even the untrained Russian masses can win if the other side has no guns or ammunition.  Unfortunately you can't just issue a directive and suddenly be flooded with all the stuff you need.  At best we are talking months and in terms of aircraft possibly years.  If Putin continues on as the leader of Russian, this conflict can rage on until he dies.

Unfortunately, that is correct. It is actually worse than that. I greatly fear that the "west" hasn't really thought this one through. We might get lucky and Putin gets replaced by a more reasonable regime. It is also possible he gets replaced by a more effective but equally evil regime. Then even Putin's death doesn't end this mess. In fact, Putin's death could become a "martyrdom" for the new regime. While I think what we are doing in Ukraine is basically "right", I think it is to our great advantage to plan for all eventualities, even if some of the choices are grim. Hope is not a strategy.

[Goose]

From my view point there remain a lot of problems with how support the Ukraine is being handled.

1.  I don't see there supply of Russian designed aircraft lasting forever.  Is there some source for replacement aircraft and parts?  If not why do we keep kicking the can down the road in terms of getting started training them in some sort of decent NATO aircraft?

It is entirely possible there are training efforts in progress right now that are not public. I give this at least 50/50 odds. As I said before, Ukraine has no viable training pipeline for it's existing planes because 1) they are all committed to the fight, 2) there is no "safe" place in Ukraine to train (the weather also sucks in winter) and 3) pilots sometimes survive getting shot down, jets almost never do. They probably already have more pilots than they can use. Doing training in the US for the "next gen" Ukrainian pilots makes complete sense even if we aren't giving them the planes right now. I dearly hope we are doing the training. I also hope we are making contingency plans to provide them jets. A competent military force would be doing that even if it wasn't "for sure" we would ever do it.

2.  HIMARS has been a life saver but they need more longer range artillery, at least from what I read.  I presume at this point we are eating into our own stores and don't to go much further.  Is there any prospect of any other NATO country outside of the USA being able to provide a reasonable number of longer range guns, or is everyone scrapping the bottom of the barrel?

Longer range guns have been "out of style" for years. I doubt any NATO country has much bigger than 155mm and if they do they are in questionable shape, small numbers, and poorly supplied with ammunition. FWIW, I think the Ukrainian "need" for "long range artillery" is really somewhat psychological and overblown. They don't like getting pounded by missiles and want to hit back. They (legitimately) want to take the entire Russian logistics chain under fire. They also dearly want to hit Russian targets in Crimea, particularly the bridge. While these things all would help, and maybe help a lot, they are not "war winners".

It would be real nice if the US could just give Ukraine ATACMS. It is worthy of note that other nations purchased ATACMS. Korea even manufactures them under license. These aren't the "latest and greatest" but do give the HIMARS longer (300km) reach. That would be a potential "compromise" in that the Ukrainians would get M39A1s (rather than M57E1). The US no longer has the ability to manufacture ATACMS. The US is transitioning to the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) with IOC expected in 2023. Given that, expending the existing ATACMS we have shouldn't be a significant issue. They are effectively obsolete in US service. Just make sure we build PrSMs faster :-). Obviously, this is a political football. Terry rule prevents further analysis.

3.  Does the Ukraine have an adequate source of Russian type infantry weapons and ammunition?  I believe back around 2017 we looked at maybe making our own supply of Russian infantry ammunition etc.

Pretty sure small arms and ammunition isn't a problem. Lots of it available in the world and I believe several somewhat friendly countries still make it. If Ukraine had to transition to NATO weapons, I think that could also be accommodated.

4.  Last Question - How significant an impact are Western Sanctions making it for Russia?

Economic sanctions are above my pay grade. I assume they are causing problems, possibly serious ones, but I just don't know. I think the technical embargo is giving Russia fits. I just hope we are aggressively defeating their attempts to subvert it. Historically, we have been just "OK" at that, and in this case we need to be much better than that. Make sure they can't build any precision guided weapons.

Even the untrained Russian masses can win if the other side has no guns or ammunition.  Unfortunately you can't just issue a directive and suddenly be flooded with all the stuff you need.  At best we are talking months and in terms of aircraft possibly years.  If Putin continues on as the leader of Russian, this conflict can rage on until he dies.

Unfortunately, that is correct. It is actually worse than that. I greatly fear that the "west" hasn't really thought this one through. We might get lucky and Putin gets replaced by a more reasonable regime. It is also possible he gets replaced by a more effective but equally evil regime. Then even Putin's death doesn't end this mess. In fact, Putin's death could become a "martyrdom" for the new regime. While I think what we are doing in Ukraine is basically "right", I think it is to our great advantage to plan for all eventualities, even if some of the choices are grim. Hope is not a strategy.