[Goose]

I think we have to be clear here that “we” are not fighting Russia and we shouldn’t.  “We” are trying to enable Ukraine to defend itself, but in the end, it is Ukraine whose men and women are fighting and dying and Ukraine who is defending itself territory and ultimately Ukraine who will have to decide whether and how to continue fighting.  Thus, it isn’t for us to put together a plan to “win”; and honestly, given how they’ve fought the war to date, Ukraine has done a pretty phenomenal job coming up with a plan to not lose, which given that they are outmanned and outgunned and fighting a defensive war, is about all you can hope for.

I agree with lots of what you say here. Indeed we are not directly engaged in a shooting war with Russia, and most certainly the US has demonstrated we have no intention of being so engaged. The statement that "We are trying to enable Ukraine to defend itself" is of course true, but IMO incomplete. We are "helping" Ukraine not simply for "humanitarian reasons" but for reasons of our own national interest. The belief that this involvement helps our national interest must take in to account the probability of success. If there is no path for Ukraine to "win", how does our involvement serve the national interest? IMO intervention in a scenario where we are inevitably assigned to the "losing" side makes no sense.
 
We also must realize that we ARE involved in a war, even if we aren't losing troops. Our actions definitely do affect Ukraine's ability (and undoubtedly willingness) to fight. The success (or lack thereof) of our economic sanctions are certainly important to any chance of Ukraine having success in this war. I agree Ukraine is going to be required to do all the fighting and dying. They also ultimately have the power to decide when and if they will cease fighting. However, for both the sake of Ukraine and of the US/NATO there needs to be a combined vision of how this war can be ended. Having no path to victory (however that is defined) is clearly foolish. Fighting until Putin gives up all his gains in Ukraine is a plan if a reasonable way to ensure Ukraine can do that is also decided upon. Fighting until Putin is willing to stop on the current battle lines is also a plan if we have a way to ensure Ukraine can do that. However, unless the alliance of the US, NATO and Ukraine has a fairly well-defined way ahead that we all mostly agree upon it is highly unlikely Ukraine will survive or the US/NATO national interests will be advanced.
 
IMO the Catholic definition of a "Just War" sheds some light on the current situation, and is always a good place to start in deciding that participating in a war can be justified. From https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-a-just-war

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the conditions for just war in paragraph 2309:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  
• there must be serious prospects of success;
  
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The "serious prospect of success" must be present or it is not a just war, period. Fighting without a plan cannot yield a "serious prospect of success". That is on all members of the alliance, not just Ukraine.

Russia has been making very slow but steady gains, but we re talking about a net of 4,000 square miles in the last two years (out of a total area of 233,000 square miles), which is basically 1% of Ukranian territory a year, at a cost of about 1 million casualties since the war has started.

Since they are the ones with skin in the game, as long as they are willing to fight, we ought to continue to arm them to the extent that we can.  But also, because they are the ones with skin in the game, if they chose to make the painful concessions needed to bring peace, we should support that too, and we should help create the conditions such that if they did sign a cease fire with Russia, we should do all we can to prevent Russia from re-invading.

If Ukraine enters into negotiations with Russia and an agreement is reached, Ukraine certainly has the power to accept that agreement, whether the US and NATO likes it or not. Conversely, the US and NATO can withdraw their support if Ukraine refuses to sign an agreement with Russia that the US/NATO thinks they "should". That is just realpolitik. OTOH the prospect of a disconnect of this type is much greater if there is no agreement between the members allied with Ukraine on what outcomes are acceptable to all parties. It may be no real consensus is possible, but if that is the case the alliance will not last long anyway.
 
The decision to do "all possible" to prevent Russia from re-invading has already long been made, and that decision is that indeed we will not. We didn't do "all possible" in 2014, we didn't do it in 2022, and unless there is a profound change in the US electorate we wouldn't do it in 2026 either. Nobody, particularly not Putin, is going to believe we would be willing to send troops to help defend Ukraine (pre or post ceasefire) until we do exactly that. A replay of the current war isn't attractive to anybody. It is unclear what NATO or the US can do that would actually deter Russia from continuing to fight absent Ukraine actually "winning" the current war. What would we do in 2026 that we are unwilling to do today? If there is some such thing we should do it NOW while Russia is heavily engaged and has lots of economic and equipment issues. The next time they come for a "rump" Ukraine it will be with their eyes wide open.

Right now, that’s all moot because it is clear that what Russia wants is a capitulation not a peace treaty, and so Ukraine fights on, in the hope that something will change in the Russian calculation about continuing to wage its war.
 
BC

Except it isn't moot for the US and NATO. We have to decide what we are going to do going forward. At one point the administration seemed settled on a course of full disengagement. Now, at least for the moment, it is "more of the same", kind of, as long as somebody pays for it. IMO that policy makes no sense. We are either "in" or we are "out". It is not in our national interest to just be mercenary weapons suppliers. What is our policy, and why is that policy a "good idea"?

[Goose]

I think we have to be clear here that “we” are not fighting Russia and we shouldn’t.  “We” are trying to enable Ukraine to defend itself, but in the end, it is Ukraine whose men and women are fighting and dying and Ukraine who is defending itself territory and ultimately Ukraine who will have to decide whether and how to continue fighting.  Thus, it isn’t for us to put together a plan to “win”; and honestly, given how they’ve fought the war to date, Ukraine has done a pretty phenomenal job coming up with a plan to not lose, which given that they are outmanned and outgunned and fighting a defensive war, is about all you can hope for.

I agree with lots of what you say here. Indeed we are not directly engaged in a shooting war with Russia, and most certainly the US has demonstrated we have no intention of being so engaged. The statement that "We are trying to enable Ukraine to defend itself" is of course true, but IMO incomplete. We are "helping" Ukraine not simply for "humanitarian reasons" but for reasons of our own national interest. The belief that this involvement helps our national interest must take in to account the probability of success. If there is no path for Ukraine to "win", how does our involvement serve the national interest? IMO intervention in a scenario where we are inevitably assigned to the "losing" side makes no sense.
 
We also must realize that we ARE involved in a war, even if we aren't losing troops. Our actions definitely do affect Ukraine's ability (and undoubtedly willingness) to fight. The success (or lack thereof) of our economic sanctions are certainly important to any chance of Ukraine having success in this war. I agree Ukraine is going to be required to do all the fighting and dying. They also ultimately have the power to decide when and if they will cease fighting. However, for both the sake of Ukraine and of the US/NATO there needs to be a combined vision of how this war can be ended. Having no path to victory (however that is defined) is clearly foolish. Fighting until Putin gives up all his gains in Ukraine is a plan if a reasonable way to ensure Ukraine can do that is also decided upon. Fighting until Putin is willing to stop on the current battle lines is also a plan if we have a way to ensure Ukraine can do that. However, unless the alliance of the US, NATO and Ukraine has a fairly well-defined way ahead that we all mostly agree upon it is highly unlikely Ukraine will survive or the US/NATO national interests will be advanced.
 
IMO the Catholic definition of a "Just War" sheds some light on the current situation, and is always a good place to start in deciding that participating in a war can be justified. From https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-a-just-war

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the conditions for just war in paragraph 2309:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  
• there must be serious prospects of success;
  
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The "serious prospect of success" must be present or it is not a just war, period. Fighting without a plan cannot yield a "serious prospect of success". That is on all members of the alliance, not just Ukraine.

Russia has been making very slow but steady gains, but we re talking about a net of 4,000 square miles in the last two years (out of a total area of 233,000 square miles), which is basically 1% of Ukranian territory a year, at a cost of about 1 million casualties since the war has started.

Since they are the ones with skin in the game, as long as they are willing to fight, we ought to continue to arm them to the extent that we can.  But also, because they are the ones with skin in the game, if they chose to make the painful concessions needed to bring peace, we should support that too, and we should help create the conditions such that if they did sign a cease fire with Russia, we should do all we can to prevent Russia from re-invading.

If Ukraine enters into negotiations with Russia and an agreement is reached, Ukraine certainly has the power to accept that agreement, whether the US and NATO likes it or not. Conversely, the US and NATO can withdraw their support if Ukraine refuses to sign an agreement with Russia that the US/NATO thinks they "should". That is just realpolitik. OTOH the prospect of a disconnect of this type is much greater if there is no agreement between the members allied with Ukraine on what outcomes are acceptable to all parties. It may be no real consensus is possible, but if that is the case the alliance will not last long anyway.
 
The decision to do "all possible" to prevent Russia from re-invading has already long been made, and that decision is that indeed we will not. We didn't do "all possible" in 2014, we didn't do it in 2022, and unless there is a profound change in the US electorate we wouldn't do it in 2026 either. Nobody, particularly not Putin, is going to believe we would be willing to send troops to help defend Ukraine (pre or post ceasefire) until we do exactly that. A replay of the current war isn't attractive to anybody. It is unclear what NATO or the US can do that would actually deter Russia from continuing to fight absent Ukraine actually "winning" the current war. What would we do in 2026 that we are unwilling to do today? If there is some such thing we should do it NOW while Russia is heavily engaged and has lots of economic and equipment issues. The next time they come for a "rump" Ukraine it will be with their eyes wide open.

Right now, that’s all moot because it is clear that what Russia wants is a capitulation not a peace treaty, and so Ukraine fights on, in the hope that something will change in the Russian calculation about continuing to wage its war.
 
BC

Except it isn't moot for the US and NATO. We have to decide what we are going to do going forward. At one point the administration seemed settled on a course of full disengagement. Now, at least for the moment, it is "more of the same", kind of, as long as somebody pays for it. IMO that policy makes no sense. We are either "in" or we are "out". It is not in our national interest to just be mercenary weapons suppliers. What is our policy, and why is that policy a "good idea"?