[tomder55]

So you want us to send troops in to fight ? Because that is the ONLY way Ukraine can win. The Russians have been sloppy ;replacing Generals as often as Lincoln had to until he found Grant . Grant basically bludgeoned the South into submission. The Union had fodder to spare .The South didn't .

Russia has not even committed to full mobilization while Ukraine is losing a generation and the Ukraine diaspora grows .

We talk of sending offensive weapons like tanks . I already mentioned that they have outlived their purpose in modern warfare . It is like the Brits sending the Light Brigade into a cannon formation during the at the Battle of Balaclava Crimea .
Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die.

There's unconfirmed talk about sending a handful of Abram tanks that would make no difference; or some old German Leopard II tanks (which reportedly would take a year to renovate ) The Brits talk about sending 10 Challenger II tanks(bulky huge slow and a complicated tank to operate _)

Ukraine needs at least a thousand to make any difference. What have they gotten in armored vehicles from us ? Dribs and drabs.
50 Bradley's about as many to equip a company or 2 .

U.S. weapons package for Ukraine includes 50 Bradley Fighting Vehicles -officials | Reuters

We don't have any more to give without seriously depleting our own stock .

The M777 howitzers we sent are being destroyed by Russian drones and .Ukrainian mishandling . The barrels have to be swapped out in Poland ,not close to the battlefield .

Artillery Is Breaking in Ukraine. It’s Becoming a Problem for the Pentagon. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

In less than a year we have sent them over a million rounds of artillery shells .

Ukraine Has Received Over A Million Artillery Rounds From The U.S. (thedrive.com)

At the start of the war Ukraine had over a thousand tanks ;missile systems armored carriers . They have all been destroyed . All the weapons sent by former Warsaw pact nations like Poland have all been destroyed .At least they could operate those . All the NATO weapons being sent cannot be used without extensive training .

Even if properly trained it just is not enough to make a difference . But we can go on with a clear conscience that 'oh well ;we tried '

Western propaganda feeds on wishful thinking fantasy that Ukraine can win and Russia that big boogieman threat from the mid 20th century will be destroyed .

What is our real bottom line ? How far will we commit before we do our typical cut and run ? No one challenges the premise so instead we go on suspending disbelief .

Ukraine's army is bleeding out and we keep sending them false hope. Once the war became a Verdun like war of attrition their fate was sealed . US Grant sent waves of Union troops at the Confederates .He was willing to take the losses . The Confederates fought nobly but could not replace their losses . This is what is happening in Ukraine .

Unless NATO troops enter into the conflict ;or something domestically happens in Russia that changes leadership and policy ,then the end is a fait accompli .

It gives me no pleasure to say it . But I see it as the way it is instead of a fanciful way it should be .

[jlisenbe]

The Confederates fought on in 64 and 65 in the hope (vain, as it turned out) that Lincoln would be defeated because of the enormous casualties being suffered by the North. That didn't pan out, and so defeat became inevitable. I think the Ukes are trying the same tactic. If they can make Putin look foolish enough, then perhaps he'll be deposed, and his successor might be more open to an equitable peace agreement. I'm afraid Tom's scenario is the one most likely to pan out, and it will be a tragedy for Ukraine.

The world needs to make it clear that it will not forget this savage violation of international peace by the Russkies. They should be made to pay in the long run.

[tomder55]

Rarely mentioned is that Dem candidate General McClellan did not support ending the war. He was just opposed to abolition . He wanted to continue the fight and restore the Union.

In that he ran counter to the Dem platform of a settled and negotiated peace with an independent Confederacy. He actually divided the Dems . I am not sure that history is accurate when it contends that Lincoln's fate was dependent on battlefield victories .

The South was not going to accept a peace that forced them back into the Union .The war was existential to them . So they fought the 'Lost Cause' to it's conclusion.

[tomder55]

Ukraine victory looks increasingly doubtful. A more likely scenario is a repeat of Putin's Chechnya campaign . He left both Chechnya (and Syria )moonscapes before the war ended (which no one in the west gave too sh+ts about ....so much for 'You don't back down in the face of a bully. You confront the bully whether it's a person or a nation.' )

The best outcome I see is a negotiated peace. The sooner the better .

[jlisenbe]

I'm afraid you're right. It's a somewhat bitter pill to swallow, but it's how the world operates. I'm not sure we're doing them a big favor by enabling them to fight on.