[Goose]

Moldova and North Macedonia are poor countries with limited or no access to a port, but they are still kicking. 

Indeed they are. The GDP per capita of Moldova in 2019 was $4,404.95, and in 2022 was $5,741.43. The corresponding numbers for North Macedonia are $6,070.49 and $6,591.47. Both sets of numbers reflect their lack of economic strength. The numbers for Ukraine are $3,661.46 and $4,533.98. If the first two are "poor", what does that make Ukraine? For reference these numbers are from the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/) I included 2019 to remove any effects of the current war. I believe all these numbers include any "foreign aid", but I don't know that.

Just to be absolutely precise, Moldova is not land locked. It has a small strip of land at Palanca that supports a very small port. Palanca is a village and the port is good for fishing and not much else. However, since Moldova used to be part of Romania and the transportation system runs in that direction, it isn't a problem. There are very good rail links and canal links to Romania which easily accommodate Moldova's exports. During the current war Ukraine used these facilities for some exports of grain. 

For reference, the corresponding numbers for Russia are $11,536.26 and $15,270.71. Obviously inflation is real, but the difference between Russia and Ukraine is stark. One might ask why any sane Russian would want to dilute their GDP per capita by that much.

If you think it's so improbable that Ukraine will survive, then why are you so gung ho about providing $65 billion in aid to Ukraine?

To be clear, I don't think Ukraine will "survive" if it does not "win". The main reason for this is that I don't believe Russia will stop fighting until they occupy all of Ukraine or until the tide of battle turns and some vital interest of Russia is threatened. The related reason is that I don't think Ukraine will be able to continue fighting very long if the goal is a stalemate. Enough of the military capable population will decide a stalemate isn't worth their life, especially when/if even that stalemate isn't a sure thing.

When the US decided to aid Ukraine in resisting the Russians, it was undoubtedly over the strong objections of the US military. As the very first post in this thread says, Russia and give the points was the best bet. It was decided (and IMO correctly) that despite the degree of difficulty, we couldn't stand by and let Russia get away with invading Ukraine. Ukraine has accomplished more than we had any reason to expect. However, the US and NATO has not done the necessary extremely good job of strategic planning and execution of logistic support necessary to win. Despite Ukraine doing well and despite Russia having their own set of problems, the correlation of forces is what it is. We have to be better or Ukraine will be defeated.

IMO the US has not behaved as if Ukraine winning was a long shot. We have not been "all in" short of sending troops to fight. We have dithered over decisions and been slow to execute. It appears we do not have a plan that leads to a Ukrainian victory. It seems we have no plan at all. We react to events rather than shaping events. As the underdog, we can't do that. It appears that the "plan", in so far as there is one, is to support Ukraine enough they can hang on until Russia realizes this war isn't worth it. Sounds a lot like the "messaging" strategy we used in Vietnam. Russia has had ample time to realize this war wasn't worth it. They don't agree and they believe the west will lose interest and/or Ukraine will be defeated.  It is probable that once again nobody in Washington addressed the "How does this end?" question with anything other than the belief our opponents will just give up. Might happen, but not a good bet. As I have said before, the only thing worse for the US and NATO than passively letting Russia have Ukraine would be to oppose that outcome and fail. We don't seem to realize that.

 
I tend to think that many outcomes are possible, and I would not bet against the will of a people with their collective back to a wall.

I agree emphatically with your second point. I am the one saying they can "win". That victory can take many forms, but all of them involve Russia leaving/being driven out of Crimea. Otherwise, Russia stays and fights. There are other possible outcomes. One of those, which at this moment is unfortunately the most probable one, is that Russia occupies all of Ukraine. If Russia hasn't accomplished this before Putin leaves power, other outcomes MAY become more probable, depending on who replaces Putin. Betting on this scenario is IMO not wise.

[Goose]

Moldova and North Macedonia are poor countries with limited or no access to a port, but they are still kicking. 

Indeed they are. The GDP per capita of Moldova in 2019 was $4,404.95, and in 2022 was $5,741.43. The corresponding numbers for North Macedonia are $6,070.49 and $6,591.47. Both sets of numbers reflect their lack of economic strength. The numbers for Ukraine are $3,661.46 and $4,533.98. If the first two are "poor", what does that make Ukraine? For reference these numbers are from the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/) I included 2019 to remove any effects of the current war. I believe all these numbers include any "foreign aid", but I don't know that.

Just to be absolutely precise, Moldova is not land locked. It has a small strip of land at Palanca that supports a very small port. Palanca is a village and the port is good for fishing and not much else. However, since Moldova used to be part of Romania and the transportation system runs in that direction, it isn't a problem. There are very good rail links and canal links to Romania which easily accommodate Moldova's exports. During the current war Ukraine used these facilities for some exports of grain. 

For reference, the corresponding numbers for Russia are $11,536.26 and $15,270.71. Obviously inflation is real, but the difference between Russia and Ukraine is stark. One might ask why any sane Russian would want to dilute their GDP per capita by that much.

If you think it's so improbable that Ukraine will survive, then why are you so gung ho about providing $65 billion in aid to Ukraine?

To be clear, I don't think Ukraine will "survive" if it does not "win". The main reason for this is that I don't believe Russia will stop fighting until they occupy all of Ukraine or until the tide of battle turns and some vital interest of Russia is threatened. The related reason is that I don't think Ukraine will be able to continue fighting very long if the goal is a stalemate. Enough of the military capable population will decide a stalemate isn't worth their life, especially when/if even that stalemate isn't a sure thing.

When the US decided to aid Ukraine in resisting the Russians, it was undoubtedly over the strong objections of the US military. As the very first post in this thread says, Russia and give the points was the best bet. It was decided (and IMO correctly) that despite the degree of difficulty, we couldn't stand by and let Russia get away with invading Ukraine. Ukraine has accomplished more than we had any reason to expect. However, the US and NATO has not done the necessary extremely good job of strategic planning and execution of logistic support necessary to win. Despite Ukraine doing well and despite Russia having their own set of problems, the correlation of forces is what it is. We have to be better or Ukraine will be defeated.

IMO the US has not behaved as if Ukraine winning was a long shot. We have not been "all in" short of sending troops to fight. We have dithered over decisions and been slow to execute. It appears we do not have a plan that leads to a Ukrainian victory. It seems we have no plan at all. We react to events rather than shaping events. As the underdog, we can't do that. It appears that the "plan", in so far as there is one, is to support Ukraine enough they can hang on until Russia realizes this war isn't worth it. Sounds a lot like the "messaging" strategy we used in Vietnam. Russia has had ample time to realize this war wasn't worth it. They don't agree and they believe the west will lose interest and/or Ukraine will be defeated.  It is probable that once again nobody in Washington addressed the "How does this end?" question with anything other than the belief our opponents will just give up. Might happen, but not a good bet. As I have said before, the only thing worse for the US and NATO than passively letting Russia have Ukraine would be to oppose that outcome and fail. We don't seem to realize that.

 
I tend to think that many outcomes are possible, and I would not bet against the will of a people with their collective back to a wall.

I agree emphatically with your second point. I am the one saying they can "win". That victory can take many forms, but all of them involve Russia leaving/being driven out of Crimea. Otherwise, Russia stays and fights. There are other possible outcomes. One of those, which at this moment is unfortunately the most probable one, is that Russia occupies all of Ukraine. If Russia hasn't accomplished this before Putin leaves power, other outcomes MAY become more probable, depending on who replaces Putin. Betting on this scenario is IMO not wise.