This. Though we did send them things like Javelin Missles and Patriot Systems that are among our best.....but that said we got the opportunity to see how those have performed in a real conflict as well as learned a huge amount about the new battlespace that cheap drones have created.sycasey said:I'm sure folks will want to argue against this, but: my understanding is that the aid the US was giving to Ukraine was a relatively small portion of our overall defense budget and mostly giving them older equipment we weren't really using anymore anyway. I think this kind of aid could have continued almost indefinitely with minimal skin off our nose, as long as the Ukrainians remained willing to fight (and I think they have proven that they are). So no, I don't think it would "almost certainly" result in Ukraine being absorbed into Russia. Russia isn't going to be able to hold a country where such a large majority of the population hates them.tequila4kapp said:
1. I think this is the million dollar question for the Status Quo crowd. What is the end game for continuing to arm Ukraine? When does it end? What's the objective? They don't seem to have an answer, they just want to keep on doing the same thing because Putin/Russia are evil (and I do trend toward agreeing with that sentiment). That isn't good enough. It is expensive and will almost certainly result in Ukraine being fully defeated/absorbed back into Russia or NATO troops fighting Russia. Those are absolutely unacceptable outcomes.
That said, the war was likely to remain a virtual stalemate for some time so starting peace talks (with the understanding that Ukraine would lose some territory) was not necessarily a bad idea; I just think we should be doing it while on the side of freedom and democracy, and not with our government parroting all of the Russian propaganda talking points.
One of the reasons I don't think Ukraine is necessarily going to collapse anytime soon is that the war has shown just how much defensive doctrines right now are in ascendance....it is just nearly impossible to marshall a huge amount of force along a narrow front when a thousand drones can be sent against those build ups to disrupt. Why the war has "devolved" to WW1 shelling match as neither side can concentrate force.
PS. It is also when the history of this conflict is written I will be fascinated by the chapters about why Ukraine launched its disastrous counter offensive. It was clear that offense was going to be very very VERY hard against any sort of force and yet their tried. You really need to have undefended territory (see early days of the war or the invasion of Kursk) to stand a chance of actually applying force in depth and making strategic gains. But ask shown in Kursk (and in the stall of the Russian initial invasion), once forces are marshalled defenders are at such an advantage.
Take care of your Chicken
