[Goose]

I think Ukraine would continue to fight for much longer than January 2025 without US aid, though they would certainly lose territory. I think many Ukrainian soldiers fairly presume that to surrender would mean death or imprisonment or worse. Civilians remember Bucha and Irpin.

You may be correct about how long the Ukrainian solders would fight. I agree with you that surrender is probably not an option. However, what is a option is to run away and attempt to make it into Poland, or Romania, or Hungary. Once you are convinced that staying where you are and fighting is doomed to failure, troops have an annoying habit of voting with their feet. They often regret it soon thereafter, but by then the line is breached, cohesion is lost, and continuing to run looks even more attractive.

And the Russian armed forces are a pretty spent force themselves. It will take a while to reconstitute forces to the degree a sustained offensive is possible.

True, but if the other side melts away you don't need a "sustained offensive" to achieve great success. Ukraine already demonstrated this during their offensive around Kupyansk. Once they were through the front line the Russians were running away so fast the challenge was to keep up with them. Another great example is the pursuit of the Italian Army across North Africa in 1941. 

British XIII Corps of 36,000 men advanced over 500 miles across the desert in Libya and destroyed the Italian Army (Figure 1). In the process they captured over 130,000 prisoners, 480 tanks, 845 pieces of artillery and killed or destroyed countless more.

The Italian Tenth Army had over 250,000 troops, but they didn't want to fight. The British XIII Corps is the same group that Rommel then overran in the other direction. The British force was no juggernaut. It had a lot of troops that had never fought before. It lacked all kinds of critical supplies. It was often advancing using captured fuel. But when the enemy melts away, it doesn't matter.

Also pretty ridiculous IMHO to blame the administration for not making the point to the American people about the importance of Ukraine aid. Biden has mentioned it a lot in his public addresses, and there is no serious controversy in the Democratic party about Ukraine aid. 

IMO "mentioning a lot" in his public addresses is totally inadequate. When a very significant decision has been made that commits the nation to a particular course of action, it is absolutely essential that those actions be kept at the top of the public's awareness. That didn't happen. Months went by when nothing much was happening in Ukraine. It fell off the "news cycle". When that happens, people lose interest. That makes it easier for an opposition point of view to develop. In the beginning, IMO the vast majority of the country supported our intervention. The administration needed to ensure it stayed that way. They know how to run a PR campaign. Yes, it may not be easy, but it needed to be done. It may have failed even if it was done. The fact remains the administration did not spend lots of time and effort ensuring the public remained onboard. Possibly it was because they felt there was no serious controversy in the Democratic party. Unfortunately, that leaves out a lot of people, and that is a problem.

Things turned in the Republican party once the certainty of Tr*mp as nominee crystallized. Draw your own conclusions there, but I don't think Biden has much sway with the farthest right Republican base voters whose opinion shifted on Ukraine aid.

Dodging the Terry rule minefield here is tricky. It may indeed be true that no matter what the administration did a significant opposition may have developed to Ukraine military aid. However, greater effort made early on to get get potential dissidents onboard would have at least identified the problem earlier. I contrast this administration's efforts to those of FDR regarding isolationist sentiment while he was helping the UK before the US entered WWII. FDR didn't even have the advantage of initial public support. It was an uphill battle all the way, but at least it was fought out in the public sector and was a major topic of discussion the whole way. Arguably FDR didn't succeed either, and it took Pearl Harbor to finish the job of actually changing public opinion. However, it wasn't due to lack of effort.

[Goose]

I think Ukraine would continue to fight for much longer than January 2025 without US aid, though they would certainly lose territory. I think many Ukrainian soldiers fairly presume that to surrender would mean death or imprisonment or worse. Civilians remember Bucha and Irpin.

You may be correct about how long the Ukrainian solders would fight. I agree with you that surrender is probably not an option. However, what is a option is to run away and attempt to make it into Poland, or Romania, or Hungary. Once you are convinced that staying where you are and fighting is doomed to failure, troops have an annoying habit of voting with their feet. They often regret it soon thereafter, but by then the line is breached, cohesion is lost, and continuing to run looks even more attractive.

And the Russian armed forces are a pretty spent force themselves. It will take a while to reconstitute forces to the degree a sustained offensive is possible.

True, but if the other side melts away you don't need a "sustained offensive" to achieve great success. Ukraine already demonstrated this during their offensive around Kupyansk. Once they were through the front line the Russians were running away so fast the challenge was to keep up with them. Another great example is the pursuit of the Italian Army across North Africa in 1941. 

British XIII Corps of 36,000 men advanced over 500 miles across the desert in Libya and destroyed the Italian Army (Figure 1). In the process they captured over 130,000 prisoners, 480 tanks, 845 pieces of artillery and killed or destroyed countless more.

The Italian Tenth Army had over 250,000 troops, but they didn't want to fight. The British XIII Corps is the same group that Rommel then overran in the other direction. The British force was no juggernaut. It had a lot of troops that had never fought before. It lacked all kinds of critical supplies. It was often advancing using captured fuel. But when the enemy melts away, it doesn't matter.

Also pretty ridiculous IMHO to blame the administration for not making the point to the American people about the importance of Ukraine aid. Biden has mentioned it a lot in his public addresses, and there is no serious controversy in the Democratic party about Ukraine aid. 

IMO "mentioning a lot" in his public addresses is totally inadequate. When a very significant decision has been made that commits the nation to a particular course of action, it is absolutely essential that those actions be kept at the top of the public's awareness. That didn't happen. Months went by when nothing much was happening in Ukraine. It fell off the "news cycle". When that happens, people lose interest. That makes it easier for an opposition point of view to develop. In the beginning, IMO the vast majority of the country supported our intervention. The administration needed to ensure it stayed that way. They know how to run a PR campaign. Yes, it may not be easy, but it needed to be done. It may have failed even if it was done. The fact remains the administration did not spend lots of time and effort ensuring the public remained onboard. Possibly it was because they felt there was no serious controversy in the Democratic party. Unfortunately, that leaves out a lot of people, and that is a problem.

Things turned in the Republican party once the certainty of Tr*mp as nominee crystallized. Draw your own conclusions there, but I don't think Biden has much sway with the farthest right Republican base voters whose opinion shifted on Ukraine aid.

Dodging the Terry rule minefield here is tricky. It may indeed be true that no matter what the administration did a significant opposition may have developed to Ukraine military aid. However, greater effort made early on to get get potential dissidents onboard would have at least identified the problem earlier. I contrast this administration's efforts to those of FDR regarding isolationist sentiment while he was helping the UK before the US entered WWII. FDR didn't even have the advantage of initial public support. It was an uphill battle all the way, but at least it was fought out in the public sector and was a major topic of discussion the whole way. Arguably FDR didn't succeed either, and it took Pearl Harbor to finish the job of actually changing public opinion. However, it wasn't due to lack of effort.