The editors of the Washington Post encourage support for Ukraine:
The steady but deliberate pace of Western arms deliveries has frustrated Mr. Zelensky. Ukraine rightly fears it has been given enough to survive but not enough to win, in part because of President Biden’s concerns about escalation with Russia. Congress can boost Ukrainian morale and military performance by passing a large economic and military aid package in the coming weeks, sufficient to avoid stop-start disruptions in the year ahead. Despite the reluctance of some House Republicans, there remains a sizable majority in both chambers for such a package.
The United States and its allies should also work to frustrate the Kremlin’s growing circumvention of the cap of $60 per barrel on Russian oil exports. The cap allows Western companies to ship, trade or insure Russian oil only if sold at or below the cap ― or else face penalties. But Russian oil companies and traders have built a shadow fleet of tankers to bypass the cap, and its biggest customers, China and India, don’t honor the cap, although they purchase Russian oil at a discount. Overall, Russian oil revenue rose by more than a quarter in October compared with the same month last year. The revenue will help Russia support the war effort. The West should continue to press sanctions on those who facilitate the shadow fleet.
However, their conclusion includes a point that bears comment:
In the end, Ukraine may face the reality that it needs to negotiate with a Russian foe willing to endlessly sacrifice treasure and lives on the battlefield. That point has not been reached, but the West should give Ukraine the leverage to drive the best possible bargain if the time comes. And that leverage means preserving Ukraine’s chance to survive and grow as a thriving European democracy, not a vassal of the Kremlin.
Unmentioned is that the “steady but deliberate” pace of Western arms deliveries is the maximum that we can achieve without increasing production capacity and increasing production capacity is in conflict with the goal of reducing carbon emissions.
Also, note that the objective they’re advocating is not the one that Ukrainian President Zelensky avers. It is, however, consistent with the lesser objective that I’ve been articulating here: our objectives should be to ensure that Ukraine doesn’t lose outright and that there is a Ukraine when the war concludes. Those objectives require that Ukrainians and Russians get to the bargaining table quickly which neither side is willing to do at this point.
There’s something about the editors’ plan that reminds me of the stories of Hitler in his bunker as Allied forces approached Berlin, ordering nonexistent units into battle.
The key mistake is believing the Ukrainians can “win” if only we gave them more stuff faster. The reality on the ground shows that is simply not true. Western audiences have become too accustomed to a “tech fetish” view of warfare. Even the Ukrainian head of the military – Zaluzhnyi – understands the reality on the ground.
And the talk is that there simply isn’t enough stuff left – primarily artillery shells – to allow Ukraine to try another big offensive for probably a year.