>
You’re certainly optimisticRight now, no. You can't win wars without ammunition. Europe can't do shit on its own. As the adage goes, we'll always do the right thing--after exhausting all the alternatives.
> NATO war planners basically just believed their own propaganda and thought the Russians would run when attacked
Across NATO, and especially in America, the tone has been distinctly pessimistic from the start.
> Putin’s red lines are more of an invention of the press than a well-defined thing
He's been directly quoted [1]. In English, at times [2]. They're for foreign--most directly, American--consumption.
> We’ve scoured the planet for weapons to give them
We haven't given them range equipment and forbade strikes inside Russia, even clearly military targets of direct pertinence to Ukraine. Look at the effects of their strikes on Russian refinery capacity. This is a carbon copy of British and American strategy against the Nazis, to pull air-defence assets away from the frontline. (Or Ukraine's strikes on Crimea breaking Russia's blockade of its grain shipments.)
Had Ukraine had a full complenent of range armament when they started taking out Russia's warships and aircraft near the frontlines, they could have dealt an irrecoverable blow in '22. Instead, we drew things out, letting a few successful strikes show the Russians their weaknesses, letting Putin regroup and redeploy.
> Nobody knew what would happen if we’d send tanks or planes or specific weapons. Being prudent was smart.
Every military planner worth their salt did. We never equipped Ukraine to win. We still can. But it's been an ongoing political choice to draw the war out. (We did the same before the last world wars. Hence the analogy.)
Appreciate the civil discusssion, by the way.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...
[2] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-path-...