[Goose]

Just keeping on doing what we have been doing, even when it isn't working has been in my opinion the hallmark of our war efforts since Vietnam. Even more worrisome in the Ukraine situation is that I am not sure we ever had an objective that we wanted to achieve and were willing to pay for other than the rather nebulous  "peace". I do not think that Putin has any intention of negotiating any kind of real peace that basically doesn't give him Ukraine or at least most of it. I am sure there is also the concern that if we get too involved then there will be direct US/NATO vs Russia conflict.
A big question is whether a direct NATO/Russian conflict is a foregone conclusion and we are just kicking the can down the road or there is some sort of off ramp that allows both sides to save face and not lose too much one way or the other, except of course all those Russian and Ukrainians  who have died or become wounded already.  Unfortunately, what works for NATO as a solution may well not work for Putin.  I do not think weakness or willing to settle for far less than he expected to achieve will work for Putin. My guess Putin is in it for the long haul or at least until he either wins or falls out of one of the Russian hotel windows.

I pretty much agree with every single line of the above. I totally agree that the previous administration did not have a clearly defined objective. In many of our "military" efforts the eventual problems were not military. The failures were caused by the US not realizing our primary "objective" (in so far as we had a well defined one) was political, not military. The military reached the objective they were assigned. However the military couldn't create a liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan by defeating the indigenous military forces. The military can create conditions where such an outcome will be possible, but the rest of the "job" is political, social, and economic. The situation in Vietnam was worse because in that case the US had both unclear military and political objectives. We "fixed" the military objectives part in later conflicts but still failed to set political objectives and create a plan to attain them.
 
In Ukraine the US military is not directly involved. We are supplying material, intelligence and advice. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam there is a government in place (imperfect though it undoubtedly is) that is friendly to the US, has the support of the people, and is reasonably democratic. This is a very "big deal" in that we aren't looking at a nation-building scenario and all that implies. Our initial goal was (IMO) to prevent the country from being quickly overrun by Russia, period. Most of the world, including lots of our own military, believed we would quickly fail in that goal and the war would be over. That didn't happen, partly because Russia incompetently prepared and executed their attack, partly because Ukraine came together and fought bravely despite many material disadvantages, and partly because the West, particularly the US, provided immediate material and intelligence assistance. IMO there was never subsequently a "what now?" thought-out plan of military and political objectives formulated, formally adopted, and articulated to (at a minimum) those executing it. Therefore it was impossible to link the means we intended to use with the undefined objectives. We are still in that state.

[Goose]

Just keeping on doing what we have been doing, even when it isn't working has been in my opinion the hallmark of our war efforts since Vietnam. Even more worrisome in the Ukraine situation is that I am not sure we ever had an objective that we wanted to achieve and were willing to pay for other than the rather nebulous  "peace". I do not think that Putin has any intention of negotiating any kind of real peace that basically doesn't give him Ukraine or at least most of it. I am sure there is also the concern that if we get too involved then there will be direct US/NATO vs Russia conflict.
A big question is whether a direct NATO/Russian conflict is a foregone conclusion and we are just kicking the can down the road or there is some sort of off ramp that allows both sides to save face and not lose too much one way or the other, except of course all those Russian and Ukrainians  who have died or become wounded already.  Unfortunately, what works for NATO as a solution may well not work for Putin.  I do not think weakness or willing to settle for far less than he expected to achieve will work for Putin. My guess Putin is in it for the long haul or at least until he either wins or falls out of one of the Russian hotel windows.

I pretty much agree with every single line of the above. I totally agree that the previous administration did not have a clearly defined objective. In many of our "military" efforts the eventual problems were not military. The failures were caused by the US not realizing our primary "objective" (in so far as we had a well defined one) was political, not military. The military reached the objective they were assigned. However the military couldn't create a liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan by defeating the indigenous military forces. The military can create conditions where such an outcome will be possible, but the rest of the "job" is political, social, and economic. The situation in Vietnam was worse because in that case the US had both unclear military and political objectives. We "fixed" the military objectives part in later conflicts but still failed to set political objectives and create a plan to attain them.
 
In Ukraine the US military is not directly involved. We are supplying material, intelligence and advice. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam there is a government in place (imperfect though it undoubtedly is) that is friendly to the US, has the support of the people, and is reasonably democratic. This is a very "big deal" in that we aren't looking at a nation-building scenario and all that implies. Our initial goal was (IMO) to prevent the country from being quickly overrun by Russia, period. Most of the world, including lots of our own military, believed we would quickly fail in that goal and the war would be over. That didn't happen, partly because Russia incompetently prepared and executed their attack, partly because Ukraine came together and fought bravely despite many material disadvantages, and partly because the West, particularly the US, provided immediate material and intelligence assistance. IMO there was never subsequently a "what now?" thought-out plan of military and political objectives formulated, formally adopted, and articulated to (at a minimum) those executing it. Therefore it was impossible to link the means we intended to use with the undefined objectives. We are still in that state.