It would be best to arm Ukraine to the extent required (missiles, planes etc) to reclaim all their territory vs reactively doing just enough to keep them in the fight.
The trouble is: it's impossible to know ahead of time what's enough. It's doubly difficult because Russia gets to react to what NATO and friends do (e.g. with additional mobilization).
I do agree, though, that it would have been a lot better to have gotten to this place right away.
Honestly, though, the real thing that the Ukraine needs is way more artillery ammunition. And no one in NATO really has a lot of excess that they're willing to part with. Or much capacity to create more.
If NATO could give Ukraine 20 million rounds of 155mm per year, that would substantially improve their prospects. And it wouldn't be the same sort of "escalation"[1] that aircraft or long range missiles might be.
Edit: artillery -> artillery ammunition
---
1. IMO, the escalation theory is overblown. But enough people believe it in the US that it causes problems getting those kinds of equipment to Ukraine.
Citation needed here. What happens is, western governements are shipping older, but good gear to the Ukraine, and ordering shiny new as replacements.
There is no reason to presume the same is not valid here.
It makes some sense to provide small arms -> light support -> progressively bigger weapons systems. It is worth remembering that at the beginning of military aid to Ukraine, there was a large chance they might have suddenly capitulated. In that event, anything you send would have immediately fallen into not-Ukrainian hands.
We are 14 months in now.
There's no reason we shouldn't have gotten some of their pilots started in a training pipeline months ago.
The first is that it takes a long time train soldiers on complex weapon systems and the entire logistical supply chain required to support and maintain those weapon systems. Giving someone a weapon system without this makes the weapon system nigh useless to them. Look at how long it takes for American soldiers to become rated on new weapon systems.
The second is that weapon systems are designed to fit a specific war doctrine. Most weapon systems will have greatly degraded effectiveness deployed outside of the context in which they were intended to be used. US builds weapons for the way the US expects to fight. One of the reasons there is a shortage of artillery and related munitions, which is critical in Ukrainian doctrine, is that the US and many other NATO countries don't need much artillery and therefore don't have much of it nor the ability to manufacture vast quantities. And it is not feasible for Ukraine to radically change their war doctrine at this point such that NATO weapons would be more fit for purpose, it requires years of preparation to do this.
Basically, the US but more broadly NATO can't easily supply a war that is being fought the way the Ukrainians are fighting it because their militaries are not equipped to fight a war that way.
They don't fight exactly according to US doctrine, but they don't not either.
[0] https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-04-07/ukraine-c...
For purpose of discussion, does that include Crimean and Donbass?
That's pretty easy to stop - I'm sure NATO has already told Ukraine that an incursion into Russia proper would mean an end to military aid.
Really though, all we're waiting for is Putin to die from old age, or lose his hold, and then Russia will decend into anarchy.
Which will end the current threat, but open up others...
This means that anyone close to Putin, is likely lacking in capability, or perhaps more importantly, the ability to lead and drive loyalty.
Weak leaders fall fast, if they try to pick up the sceptre.
This isn't slashot. People don't need personal trolls here. Is there any reason you're following me around?
In this case if Ukraine & Russia arrive at some kind of a truce, its likely a low level conflict (fought through online misinformation /cyber warfare /border shelling) will continue. But it also won't be this full scale war
Probably because this it the real goal. Ukraine is a pawn.
Also the defense industrial complex sells more shit in a long conflict than a short one.