I remain blissfully indifferent to the circus of U.S. politics, which is frankly too dull to merit attention. I'm bored by the so-called liberals who mimic the fascists they allegedly loathe, or the vacuous Christian zealots dominating the GOP— who have more in common with the Mullahs than they would care to admit. Both parties can get fcked.
Having said that, I'll address your point as respectfully as possible, acknowledging that we may not agree on fundamental principles. My perspective isn’t based on moral judgments but on realpolitik and the typical behaviors of major powers.
Russia will win in Ukraine, regardless of U.S. support. The fact of the matter is that Ukraine has lost 20% of its territory, and based on last year's counteroffensive, there seems no feasible way for Ukraine to reclaim that land. Moving forward, it's likely that Ukraine will lose even more territory, and more lives will be lost. I'll posit to you that this is a war of attrition where the balance of manpower, artillery, and air-power is crucial. When considering these aspects—they decisively favor Russia, which boasts: i) a larger arsenal of conventional weapons; ii) more manpower; iii) air supremacy; iv) a bonus point - Ukraine is far more important to Russia than it is ever going to be to U.S., France, the UK, etc.
These are the simple facts.
If you disagree with any of these points, I’m open to discussing how U.S. aid might change the war's trajectory and what success could realistically look like for Ukraine.
I think you have no idea what Air Supremacy actually means.
Very rarely, in any war, has one side achieved air supremacy. The Allies achieved it, by the skin of its teeth, in 1945 and the Coalition achieved it in 1991. Beyond that, no real conflict high intensity conflict has achieved that ( unless you count NATO supremacy of Yugoslavia, bombing of Libya/ISIS, in which case it was not anywhere close to high intensity.)
Air Supremacy is when one side achieves complete, almost unhindered control of the sky, to a point where enemy anti-air defenses, enemy aerial assets have been degraded to such an extent that they are no longer considered in any planning of operational aerial missions.
Air supremacy is when the Allies can launch 500 Strategic bombers over Dresden without having to take into the account any superficial damage a few bands of remaining FW-190/Bf-109's which have fuel to take to the sky, or Flak 88's, can do to them. It is when the enemy aerial assets or aerial defense is no longer capable of any meaningful change in the operational, strategic and tactical landscape.
Are you trying to argue that this is the case in Ukraine?
Might I remind you that Tupolev's still have to launch from the Caspian sea because it cannot afford to go near Ukrainian airspace
Or that Frogfoots are still doing surface-hogging low altitude missions because high altitude means they get picked off by air defenses.
Or that rotorwing's are suffering from such attrition that Ka-52's have all but disappeared from the battlefield entirely.
Or that Russian squadrons are still not able to undergo Interdiction and Patrol missions over Ukraine itself due to heavy attrition and losses.
Russia is relying on very long range standoff munitions and low-altitude glide bombs right now.
It's arguable that Russia doesn't even have Air Superiority right now (though I believe at this point it does), but Air Supremacy? Jesus christ what a ridiculous claim.
