Politico: Biden admin isn’t fully convinced Ukraine can win, even with new aid

[Woody]

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/biden-ukraine-russia-war-aid-00154143

But wait, I was constantly reminded that bringing this up you were a Russian simp. Have the Russians infiltrated the Biden admin now?

Despite the time and political capital spent on the $60 billion aid for Ukraine, some Biden administration officials are skeptical it’s enough for Ukraine to win its two-year war with Russia.

“The immediate goal is to stop Ukrainian losses and help Ukraine regain momentum and turn the tide on the battlefield. After that, the goal is to help Ukraine begin to regain its territory,” said one of the officials. “Will they have what they need to win? Ultimately, yes. But it’s not a guarantee that they will. Military operations are much more complicated than that.”

The Biden administration has long maintained Kyiv will decide how the war will end, whether by pushing Russian forces back across the border or a favorable deal at the bargaining table. But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy insists his nation must fight until the Crimean peninsula, the eastern Donbas territory and other parts of the country are back under his control. Whether posturing or not, that stance commits the United States to a much longer conflict with no guarantee Zelenskyy will achieve his goals.

“There’s lots of debate about what a winning endgame for Ukraine looks like at this point,” said the senior Democratic Senate staffer.

What wasn’t clear in the messaging was if Ukraine could win with what the U.S. sought to provide. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) sidestepped that question when POLITICO asked about it during the Munich Security Conference in February. Instead, the Senate Intelligence Committee chair said, “I am not aware of any other way for, in the short term, the Ukrainians to get the arms and ammunition and tools they need, other than from the United States.”

Many analysts of the conflict insist the win-or-not-lose dichotomy is contrived. The aid tranche should be judged by whether it improves Ukraine’s fighting and negotiating position against Russia, the RAND Corporation’s Samuel Charap said.

[Red Velvet]

Depends on the definition of “win”. If by “win” they mean Ukraine regaining all occupied territory then obviously they all know this isn’t happening and simply lie to their audience about stuff like Crimea becoming Ukrainian again lol

The hope that I believe they might really have is about stopping things on the current line or retarding Russian advance as most as possible. The war cannot go forever though as human resources are naturally limited.

What annoys me is that they will sacrifice every living young Ukrainian man before this and then what? Does anyone buy that they will send theirs to fight in Ukraine afterwards or will they just let a weakened Russia take over, stopping things at the established NATO borders when that’s a much more comfortable position for them, postponing a nuclear WW3 (and all the domestic and international consequences that this has) to only when there’s a NATO country at risk?

The CORRECT path was ensuring a peace deal from the beginning in the invasion but I also believe the correct timing for this has long passed and Russia will never take this now that they have the upper hand and time and numbers (human capital) are in their favor.

Ukraine is the Poland of this century that believed that it would be seen as equals by either of the sides when it’s seen as “lesser” by both. It’s now paying the price for their leader stupidity on the matter.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Depends on the definition of “win”. If by “win” they mean Ukraine regaining all occupied territory then obviously they all know this isn’t happening and simply lie to their audience about stuff like Crimea becoming Ukrainian again lol

The hope that I believe they might really have is about stopping things on the current line or retarding Russian advance as most as possible. The war cannot go forever though as human resources are naturally limited.

From Ukraine's perspective just holding current lines defensively is a loss though. I think that more or less is the endgame, but the political leadership is not there yet at least in public. It's why I'm more interested what's getting said privately.

The CORRECT path was ensuring a peace deal from the beginning in the invasion but I also believe the correct timing for this has long passed and Russia will never take this now that they have the upper hand and time and numbers (human capital) are in their favor.

You can't push peace when neither side wants it.

Ukraine were invaded and took valid actions to defend their country and homeland, they're just the war has aged, they're exhausting inventory and personnel, and are on the back foot. Back in 2014 and in early 2022 they lost sections of their territory equivalent in size to a country the size of Hungary, have held their lines mostly for the last 2 years to where the conflict resembled stalemate, have been unable to change operational reality on the front lines, their planned offensive against Russia did not achieve aims, and the Russians have started making marginal gains the past 6 months. Just yesterday the naturally Ukraine-friendly ISW said the Russians are busting out northwest of Avdiivka (we're talking 5 km but that's a large gain in context of most of the last 2 years) and the Ukrainians may need to withdraw to more defensible lines.

Ukraine is the Poland of this century that believed that it would be seen as equals by either of the sides when it’s seen as “lesser” by both. It’s now paying the price for their leader stupidity on the matter.

Fair.

[Crumpets]

Well yeah, the new aid isn't going to make Ukraine win alone. It's not that kind of war where either side is going to thunder run to the other's capital and declare absolute victory. It's to help Ukraine survive longer, hopefully wearing down Russia's ability to keep fighting and make Putin's position less tenable. But we'll almost certainly need more aid next year, which even the proponents of this aid have been saying all along. Good thing this aid passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses, so Trump can't single-handedly put a stop to it is he wins in November!

[Hindsight was 2020]

Woody with another “Ukraine is doomed pay attention to me!” Threads and the first comment is Red Velvet with a variation of his “Ukraine deserves what it getting for daring to want to be Western allied. Long live the BRICS” post. Just a 1-2 punch of awful lol

[Sir Mohamed]

Woodbury threaf

[Pres Mike]

Ukraine was never going to reclaim all its territory back. Even the land it did reclaim was Russia withdrawing to consolidate forces elsewhere.

Ukraine fought bravely, no doubt. The best case scenario is for President Biden to win re-election and for a negotiated settlement in Jan 2025 where Russia withdraws to Feb 2022 position.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Ukraine was never going to reclaim all its territory back. Even the land it did reclaim was Russia withdrawing to consolidate forces elsewhere.

Ukraine fought bravely, no doubt. The best case scenario is for President Biden to win re-election and for a negotiated settlement in Jan 2025 where Russia withdraws to Feb 2022 position.

I don't see that happening unless they're forced considering they've annexed the 4 oblasts already and are running them administratively.

I do see in my mind Biden if still in power pushing something to the public the equivalent of "Mission Accomplished" saying "WE WON!" because that's all American politics is now is managing public perception.

[Sir Mohamed]

Ukraine was never going to reclaim all its territory back. Even the land it did reclaim was Russia withdrawing to consolidate forces elsewhere.

Ukraine fought bravely, no doubt. The best case scenario is for President Biden to win re-election and for a negotiated settlement in Jan 2025 where Russia withdraws to Feb 2022 position.

I wouldn't say it was unrealistic. Both Biden and the Europeans should have delivered even more systems over the fall of 2022 and the subsequent months, when Ukraine had the momentum and was regaining territory. Since that didn't happen and Ukranian military leadership made a number of strategically poor decisions, Russia was able to secure the current line by errecting barriers and all sorts of obstacles like trenches.

The question now is whether Ukraine can again mobilize enough forces in terms of manpower, even with adequate supply of weapons by the West. An ideal scenario would be Ukraine once again turning the tide and making territorial gains that would hurt Russia's confidence. We could see more backlash from within Russia's army and govt to finally negotiate (see Wagner rebellion). Putin's position would be much weaker once they start losing more and more ground. Then he might feel the need to actually negotiate.

[GP270watch]

Long term Russia can't run Ukraine because they have a hostile population and any window that opens will see the Ukrainians take back territory. Russians are pissed with Putin, it's hard for Western media to cover this but there are many signs on social media that Russian youth is ready to move on from Putin. I really think we could be 72 hours from Russians deposing Putin at literally any time in the next few years. When revolution happens in Russia, it happens that quickly.

[Florida Man for Crime]

I for one am glad to see that Woody has come around and now realizes what we have sent to Ukraine so far is insufficient (whereas before he was complaining it was too much), and so consequently we need to send more to make up the insufficiency.

I agree, Congress should immediately pass an additional aid package to Ukraine to make up for the insufficiency and lateness of this one. This one was needed about 6 months ago, so obviously we need a new one for now as well.

Storr has a good post here https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=469771.msg9462229#msg9462229 which explains some of the insufficiency of the pathetically limited package that Congress just passed. We have not even bothered to ramp up production of Patriot missile defense batteries, despite the obviously high demand for more and the existing capacity to produce them.

For a start, Biden should get serious, and there is no better way to signal that than for him to immediately fire Jake Sullivan.

USA should start sending our old planes to Ukraine as well. So far, the only countries sending F-16s to Ukraine are European countries who have many fewer old planes than the US. The US has many hundreds of old F-16s that are either in storage or presently are being retired as they are replaced by new F-35s. Moreover, we also have old F-117 stealth fighters and even starting to have some F-22s stealths that we are retiring. We should give these to Ukraine, I am sure they would be happy to have them. Along with the planes, Biden and other NATO leaders should allow any NATO volunteer pilots who decide of their own free will they want to go, following the precedent of the Flying Tigers who went to China to fight the Japanese in WW2.

We should do the same thing for all sorts of other equipment that we have only sent tiny negligible amounts of, but which we just have sitting around in our stockpiles doing nothing.

[Horus]

Long term Russia can't run Ukraine because they have a hostile population and any window that opens will see the Ukrainians take back territory. Russians are pissed with Putin, it's hard for Western media to cover this but there are many signs on social media that Russian youth is ready to move on from Putin. I really think we could be 72 hours from Russians deposing Putin at literally any time in the next few years. When revolution happens in Russia, it happens that quickly.

Good. But do the Russian youth want to replace him with a normie centrist or a Rodnovery nut?

[Florida Man for Crime]

Good thing this aid passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses, so Trump can't single-handedly put a stop to it is he wins in November!

If Trump wins and Congress passes aid over his veto threats, he will try to defy Congress and simply decline to send the authorized aid, or to deliberately do so much more slowly than intended (maybe he sends in in a few years after it is passed or something, after it is too late).

Trump attempted to freeze/delay/limit aid to Ukraine in his first term (related to his first impeachment, among other things) and will try to do so again. In a second term, he would also be less constrained and more able to simply ignore checks upon him that Congress or the courts try to impose.

[Damocles]

Hide Z-threads.

Ignore Z-posts.

Do not reply to Z-posters.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't see that happening unless they're forced considering they've annexed the 4 oblasts already and are running them administratively.

     Interestingly, negotiating a peace on terms that are clearly a loss for Russia (e.g. Feb 2022 borders) would drastically increase the chances of Putin being removed since in doing so he will have proven himself to be a weak leader. We should not pretend that he fails to realize this.

[Open Source Intelligence]

I don't see that happening unless they're forced considering they've annexed the 4 oblasts already and are running them administratively.

     Interestingly, negotiating a peace on terms that are clearly a loss for Russia (e.g. Feb 2022 borders) would drastically increase the chances of Putin being removed since in doing so he will have proven himself to be a weak leader. We should not pretend that he fails to realize this.

Right, there's no peace because it's not in either political leadership's interest to do so. We're either going to get complete victory for one side - which won't happen unless the scale of warfare increases a few levels from either side, or we're going to get a negotiated peace that both sides accept. We're not there yet, so war continues. If one side keeps fighting when they're running out of people and resources, they'll imitate Germany circa-1944/45.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Good thing this aid passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses, so Trump can't single-handedly put a stop to it is he wins in November!

If Trump wins and Congress passes aid over his veto threats, he will try to defy Congress and simply decline to send the authorized aid, or to deliberately do so much more slowly than intended (maybe he sends in in a few years after it is passed or something, after it is too late).

Trump attempted to freeze/delay/limit aid to Ukraine in his first term (related to his first impeachment, among other things) and will try to do so again. In a second term, he would also be less constrained and more able to simply ignore checks upon him that Congress or the courts try to impose.

Trump wins I think we'd get peace relatively quick (due to removal of aid) and it would serve Zelenskyy and the rest of NATO pretty well to blame him for the loss. Although realistically it's not that different from the fall of South Vietnam and the Afghan government in 2021 where ironically Biden said he did not want to leave that war to fight for another American President.

Biden wins everyone in the West would lose their scapegoat for the loss and any Ukrainian defeat or negotiated peace that leaves the Ukrainians a little bitter on what they have to accept from 2025-29 would be forced to find another host to blame. Think of it as a sports team in the final and they lose their star player right before due to injury. "Ah, well of course we were going to lose." If there's no injury and they lose anyway, it leads to more probing questions.

[Storr]

Good thing this aid passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses, so Trump can't single-handedly put a stop to it is he wins in November!

If Trump wins and Congress passes aid over his veto threats, he will try to defy Congress and simply decline to send the authorized aid, or to deliberately do so much more slowly than intended (maybe he sends in in a few years after it is passed or something, after it is too late).

Trump attempted to freeze/delay/limit aid to Ukraine in his first term (related to his first impeachment, among other things) and will try to do so again. In a second term, he would also be less constrained and more able to simply ignore checks upon him that Congress or the courts try to impose.

Trump wins I think we'd get peace relatively quick and it (due to removal of aid) and it would serve Zelenskyy and the rest of NATO pretty well to blame him for the loss. Although realistically it's not that different from the fall of South Vietnam and the Afghan government in 2021 where ironically Biden said he did not want to leave that war to fight for another American President.

Biden wins everyone in the West would lose their scapegoat for the loss and any Ukrainian defeat or negotiated peace that leaves the Ukrainians a little bitter on what they have to accept from 2025-29 would be forced to find another host to blame.

Personally I feel that a Korea-like ceasefire is more likely than a formal peace agreement, since neither side would have to recognize the other's territorial claims.

I could see a formal peace agreement happening that is on unfavorable terms for Ukraine if Trump wins. An agreement involving Ukraine formally losing territory, but surviving as an independent state. Similar to Finland in the Winter War.

Though, I'm not sure Russia would play ball. If they know Trump is cutting or ending US aid to Ukraine, why make a peace deal now when Russia could simply take more territory from a weakened Ukraine in the future? Agreeing to a peace deal or ceasefire in that situation would only allow Ukraine to build defenses and strengthen its military, making any future territorial gains more difficult.

[Inmate Trump]

Why are Republicans so in love with Russia now? How did that happen?

They want Russia to win, they’re fantasizing about it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Ukraine may not win but Russia won’t either . Russia’s goal at the beginning of the war was regime change and will have failed at that

[Open Source Intelligence]

Good thing this aid passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses, so Trump can't single-handedly put a stop to it is he wins in November!

If Trump wins and Congress passes aid over his veto threats, he will try to defy Congress and simply decline to send the authorized aid, or to deliberately do so much more slowly than intended (maybe he sends in in a few years after it is passed or something, after it is too late).

Trump attempted to freeze/delay/limit aid to Ukraine in his first term (related to his first impeachment, among other things) and will try to do so again. In a second term, he would also be less constrained and more able to simply ignore checks upon him that Congress or the courts try to impose.

Trump wins I think we'd get peace relatively quick and it (due to removal of aid) and it would serve Zelenskyy and the rest of NATO pretty well to blame him for the loss. Although realistically it's not that different from the fall of South Vietnam and the Afghan government in 2021 where ironically Biden said he did not want to leave that war to fight for another American President.

Biden wins everyone in the West would lose their scapegoat for the loss and any Ukrainian defeat or negotiated peace that leaves the Ukrainians a little bitter on what they have to accept from 2025-29 would be forced to find another host to blame.

Personally I feel that a Korea-like ceasefire is more likely than a formal peace agreement, since neither side would have to recognize the other's territorial claims.

That's so dumb though. I'll always argue in favor of recognized borders should reflect reality.

I could see a formal peace agreement happening that is on unfavorable terms for Ukraine if Trump wins. An agreement involving Ukraine formally losing territory, but surviving as an independent state. Similar to Finland in the Winter War.

Though, I'm not sure Russia would play ball. If they know Trump is cutting or ending US aid to Ukraine, why make a peace deal now when Russia could simply take more territory from a weakened Ukraine in the future? Agreeing to a peace deal or ceasefire in that situation would only allow Ukraine to build defenses and strengthen its military, making any future territorial gains more difficult.

That was why I was making the argument last fall of Ukraine and the West should seek peace then when Biden still had runway behind him where he could react in Ukraine's favor. Regardless of what anyone thinks about Trump, he more or less has a roughly 50% chance of winning in November where the vast majority of people voting do not give a damn about Ukraine. If you think Ukraine is doomed with Trump as President, 50% is a pretty damn high risk if you look at this decision-making from a risk perspective. "Here's the coinflip: heads we might be able to marginally take back sections of Donetsk and Zaporizhia, tails we lose the whole east up to the Dnipro".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not fully convinced Ukraine can win, even with new aid, either. But this thread seems intended to imply that that is an excuse not to try. It is not.

[Beet]

The choice isn't "dont send aid and let Ukraine lose" and "send aid and keep the war going on forever". There's a third option, which is send aid but also open up diplomatic negotiations towards a conclusion of the war. If both sides are just shooting at each other and the war is generally a stalemate with neither side making any decisive strategic victory, then an armistice would be preferable. The current status quo is painful for Russia, but it is even more painful for Ukraine, which has extremely serious demographic issues and is losing a generation of its young men to this slaughter.

On the other hand, if an armistice was declared, Western troops could set up bases in Ukraine, and Russia wouldn't be able to target them without breaking the armistice. Once Western military bases are established in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn't be able to attack again without triggering WWIII, NATO or not. So I think an armistice could be feasible. If the alternative is that Ukraine keeps fighting until its young men are generationally decimated, without major changes in the front, I don't think that's a better outcome at all.

[dead0man]

if he was convinced of victory he'd be a liar, so, yeah.  What kind of moron thinks this aid is enough to guarantee a victory?

I've said it since the beginning (because it's true), every dollar spent killing Russian soldiers in Ukraine (or Russian soldiers in Russia helping their war in Ukraine) is a dollar well spent.  Why have all this military gear if we're not going to use it to kill bad guys?  And the safest way to use it is to let other people pull the trigger.  It's a win-win.  (other than wasted dollars of course, I don't completely abandon my libertarian bonafides when it comes to war , but I don't think we can use words to get Russians out of Ukraine, it's going to take bombs, blood and coin.  Freedom is expensive, thankfully freedom also brings coin (if you do it right))

[MasterJedi]

We need Europe to get off its ass and get its production on a war footing to also pump things into Ukraine and make Russia bleed. The longer the war goes on the less eastern slave cities the Russians can draw from and will have to turn more to people they consider Russian. The more that happens the population will grow increasingly restless.