Billy Ringo

Did they really?  They directly attacked a US assets in international waters.  The US is now justified in all sorts of escalation and likely can generate the internal support to do it.  The US has over 300 MQ-9s, a dozen or so with Stingers and Hellfires handed over to the UA would be appropriate right now.  Maybe finally green lighting ATACMS to hit the airfields those MiG flew from.  Oh and let’s not forget the fact that the US can do offensive cyber too.
Said it before, will say it again - the west has escalation dominance here, not Russia.

War. Nature's way of teaching Americans geography.
 
 
 
 
^Also includes war games.

What's happening in specific is that both Trump and DeSantis are entirely concentrated on winning the MAGA base to the detriment of all other goals. Trump obviously really means it while DeSantis seems to have decided that it is a useful political strategy. I've been watching this unfold pretty closely and so far, there has been a lot more reprobation aimed at DeSantis than praise. The bottom line is that MAGA just doesn't rate this issue as high as they do many others. They *are* driven...largely for exactly the reasons you'd imagine...by the idea of confrontation with China. Russia is seen as a distraction rather than a burning issue. And that's the problem for both Trump and DeSantis. Aiding Ukraine is a highly emotive issue for their domestic opponents and merely a tepid one for their supporters. Put bluntly, it's decent primary politics and very bad national politics. 
Edited to add: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/26/politics/ron-desantis-supported-ukraine-russia-kfile/index.html

There is also Bonaparte's razor" Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity". Russian pilot could have been trying to disrupt the flight of the drone by his crazy Ivan maneuvres but did not pull out on time. As the common wisdom indicates, not pulling out on time has very serious consequences.

Spain lost a good part of its American empire in wars of independence (in a way they were civil wars) during the second and third decades of the 19th century. However she continued to hold Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, the Carolinas, Guam etc. Mentally it continued to consider itself an empire and for this reason it intervened in Morocco, Vietnam, annexed Santo Domingo between 1861 and 1865, etc.
Everything fell apart with the Spanish-American War of 1898. It lost the entire overseas empire. The country mentally fell into crisis (it is known as the crisis of 1898) and went from considering itself a power to considering itself ****. The Rif War (1911-1927), with the disasters at Barranco del Lobo and Annual, did not help either. This is one of the many reasons that Spain did not get involved in world wars. We went from being a proud country capable of everything (the Spanish of the 16th century said that they had achieved things that surpassed those of the Romans) to nothing. Since then, Spain has been fighting to recover its self-esteem.
By the way, the war of 1898 is the reason why the Spanish population is, in my opinion, predominantly anti-American (I'm talking about the American government, not the American population, which is well received here). Unlike other European countries, Spain owes nothing to the US. On the contrary, the US not only ended the remains of the Spanish empire in 1898 but also supported the Franco dictatorship. I am very pro-American, much more than the average in Spain, but sometimes that also hurts me.
In short, a few serious defeats go a long way in helping a country rethink things more realistically.

I don't want to be understood wrong or people think that I am equating these countries or their people to the cesspool that is Russia. It is just that the Russians once were one of the two super powers so there is a correlation between having been at the top and then not so much. Not trying to insult or ruffle feathers, just looking at a historical comparison to maybe get some insight into answers to @The_Capt 's question.
How did the UK, France and Spain renegotiate their role in the world with themselves? All were dominant powers at one time. Germany and Japan are different scenarios (defeated and occupied) so don't fit this category. The others were once THE major players and knew it. How did they cope with the transition to becoming 2nd or 3rd power tier countries?

Some observations on recent Prig videos/audio recordings
Prig claims RU has been able to increase shell production, but I didn't see any confirmation. Certainly not on the front lines. Prig says some unnamed authorities (heavily implied RU MOD) are planning to disband Wagnerites after Bakhmut. The plan is to order Wagnerites to R&R, disarm them, and offer them an early retirement option. Prig announced that Wagnerites would not retire under any circumstances. Instead, they are preparing to recruit men from all over RU and will become a real/large army of their own. It was less of a military announcement and more of a political one. Politically RU has already been negatively affected by the Bakhmut siege. And most likely it is one of the reasons UKR command prefers to continue to defend it.  

So this idiot Prig thinks he has some power base of his own?  He exists at the discretion of Putin.  And the military has to supply him w everything and can, if not refuse,  drag their feet & give the worst supplies.  And who pays Prig & friends -- Putin does.  So he thinks all he needs to do is recruit?  -- only if someone else is paying can he do this.  Fascinating political foolishness in middle of a war.

I agree in that I don't see the west being able to totally replace the manufacturing output of China for quite awhile. However, we are already seeing displacement in certain things back to the west. You mentioned the chips which is pretty high profile (intel started up two big factories in the US two years ago), but I think we will see the cheap stuff be the majority in the short term, then the heavy stuff, and lastly the tech stuff.
I say this because where my folks live in the upper midwest a Ramen noodle factory got built last year. It replaced the one they had in China. The labor costs there have increased significantly over the last ten years, supply chain issues, and cost of shipping all come together to the point that it is now cheaper to make it here stateside. This will probably become more and more of a trend due to pricing and others have said that China and Xi have become harder and harder to work with as well. 
With the heavy industry I expect it will shift back to the west as a lot of that was sourced out of Russia (pig iron, steel, aluminum, etc). The same factors of labor, shipping, politics, and supply chain issues apply to China sourcing. Mexico has been industrializing the past 10-20 years and might be able to absorb a lot of the manufacturing not to mention South East Asia. South America also has a lot of potential. India? So it isn't that China is irreplaceable, it just isn't replaceable in the short term. Give the rest of the world 10 years and a lot of what has made China important could be shifted to other sources. 

Yes, this is pure "far right extremism" - a will to live in own free country, according own tradiotions, speaking own language, developing own culture, keep a spirit of own nation and readiness to fight for all this if need on the city squares or with a weapon. 
And this is very big luck for Ukraine we have alot of such "extremists" who just have no scare to upset. Without their "extremism" Ukriane would be go such way as Belarus. And Maidan would be degraded in endless songs and useless speeches. 
And despite Dontsov ideology was pure fascism it gave strong pulse to form numerous cohorts of young people, who were ready to sacrifice own lives in struggle in order to Ukrianian nation will survive and will not disappeare, being completely Russianized ot Polonized. Yes, often they used methods, which blamed in modern world. But thet hadn't other choice. Weak socialistic Ukrainian People Republic was lost in stupid pacifism and useless discussions. They were doomed to choice Dontsov ideology. Other in that conditions just would led all national movement to next defeat or to conformism. They knew, they rather "...will fall in the fight for it" then "will win", but they went to this goal like fanatics. "We will fall in this battle, but we will become that soil, on which will grow next generation of fighters, whi will win free Ukraine" - this said somebody of UPA commanders. UPA fought as organized army on three fronts without any external support for six years and then about 10-11 years as underground armed resistanse. Long time in our society the opinion took place that we got independence in 1991 "for free" and most of people don't value it, because "freedom wasn't poured by patriots blood". But developments of 2004-2005, 2014 and now showed that this frontier, Cossacks, UPA spirit of self-sacrifice for own land and own lyfestyle is alive and can create miracles, when nobody expects this. 
So, no need to boil over big number of "far-right" soldiers, red&black chevrons, Bandera, white crosses on tanks etc. No any "Bandera-cult" in Ukraine. But he is just partially mythologized symbol of sacrifice in a struggle for independence. And for most Ukrianians he just became a meme person to troll Russians. Our nationalism doesn't direct outside Ukraine, though a couple our hystorical lands now a part of other countries. No one leader of any significant "far-right" UKR force didn't claim it should be taken back. Unlike some politics not only in Russia, which sight about "Polish L'vov" or "Hungarian Uzhgorod" we want to keep our own.
Here is chevron of UKR soldier, killed in Ilovaisk massacre. His blood repainted national colors in red&black. Since that time these colors not only OUN flag, this is our national flag of resistance, flag of "Ukriane-at-war" our "oriflamme". Just do not force us to rise it again and again.

My reason for faking toward Melitopol was because it's exactly what RU expects the most and fears the most.  And it's probably a very hard nut to crack.  But get breakthrough all the way to Starobilsk and then (as you say) the true prize of Melitopol gets weakened as panicky Putin shifts forces.  I would actually keep the corrosion quiet in the north until I was somewhat close to jumping off.  And like Haiduk, this is where I'd put whatever new forces were coming online, hopefully w NATO IFVs & some Leos.  (and w the T62s showing up on RU side I suppose Leo1s are in fashion also)
TheCapt did not destroy my conjectured plan.... yet.  This is a big day for me 😀
Crossing Dnieper seems to me crazy.  That's a very wide river, upriver.  And downriver it's a mess of marsh & islands & channels.  

Nevertheless, in the first year of war, Putin’s partial escalation strategy has generally served him well. It has allowed him to maintain political stability through a combination of intimidation and indifference. Internationally and domestically, it has helped him prepare Russia for a very long war without making the kinds of sacrifices that might ultimately cause the population to rebel. And above all, it has given him flexibility. The more radical options—including economic nationalization and full mobilization—are still open, and the country’s bureaucracy is already prepared to set them in motion.  
The question is, how long can this not-quite-total war be sustained? The longer the war goes on, the more Putin will have to take some of the more drastic steps he has threatened. And at some point, he will run out of room to play with.
Served him well? Anyway, he might have something left in the tank, but the tank is leaking all sorts of flammables and toxins right in his own backyard.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/russias-halfway-hell-strategy
We've got to hold on to what we've got
It doesn't make a difference if we make it or not
We've got each other and that's a lot for love
We'll give it a shot
Woah, we're half way there
Woah, livin' on a prayer
Take my hand, we'll make it I swear
Woah, livin' on a prayer
Livin' on a prayer

Ah so onto REDDIT tactic #2, treat the other poster like your personal information waiter.  I spent nearly a half a page answering your post but this is the “soup you do not like.”  This is exactly what I mean by obtuse flanking - I do all the work and you sit back and nit pick from the high ground of ignorance.  “Prove to me that the earth is indeed round!”
You need a few more years on that learning journey because you do not even know what you are looking at.  
All of this research is by-design trying to figure out how to overcome the attacker-defender problem.  It has been central to warfare, pretty much from the beginning.  The problem is pretty simple, attacking is more costly and dangerous than defending but it is the only way to get things done.  So how do we overcome that?  Force ratios is one way, but there was a lot of research on speed, tempo etc because we were all up in manoeuvre warfare back in the 90s.  All those force ratio studies were reinforcing the western myth that attrition was dead.  It was all the rage right up until this war where clearly attrition is back on the menu.  Of course there are other factors in the force ratio equations, now you can go look up what force multipliers really mean.
The bottom line is that if you look at highly attritional battles against prepared defences losses ratios at the tactical level can get very high - the the opening of the Somme.  However, over time those ratios tend to settle into around 2-1.5 to 1 losses agains attacker…until/if the attacker achieves break out, then the ratio will flip pretty fast. The major weakness of defence is that it is more rigid system, more tied to owning terrain in land battle. Once that system is cracked it can fall apart pretty quickly.  However clearly the UA has not suffered this yet.
But hey if you want to cling to the idea that at Bakhmut the RA - throwing literally waves of untrained convicts and poorly trained and supported conscripts at prepared UA defences, should be seeing 1:1 loss ratios because you haven’t seen a curve on a graph…well I cannot help you.
I can tell you that if you dial in a solution that does not take into account the fact that attacking is more costly and dangerous in the short term in any professional military school, from junior leadership to joint staff college, you will fail.
 

Don’t disagree here, not sure why a UA offensive did not happen.  Ground conditions, or maybe they simply were not ready yet?  Or maybe the UA figured it was a better deal to let them smash out at Bakhmut.  Regardless the signs are definitely there that they are planning an offensive this spring or summer.
Having been the guy who has had to babysit battlefield tourists, it is nowhere near over the top.  In fact it was the main point they were bragging about and are now going to use it as “cred currency”.  If Kofman had written “been to Kyiv and met with strategic staff” I would be a lot more willing to lend credibility.  But I have seen this too many times in person to not call it what I think it is.  Even if Kofman et al had come back with tactical observations, but no we get “loss ratio was 1:1”, which sounds more like a conclusion they had going in as there is no way to determine that on the ground at Bakhmut.
Trust me this happens a lot more than people realize.  These guys show up for a weekend.  We get told in no uncertain terms “do not get them killed”.  They glad hand, maybe get mortared once or twice, and then get on the chopper and go back home to stick it on their Facebook page.  We watch them fly off and do another ramp ceremony.
Seriously?  So you want me to prove that attacking is more costly than defending?  Look this is what I call “an obtuse flanking”, where in a debate/argument someone demands that one has to prove first principles.  This is a lot of legwork and frankly drifting into unpaid labour. 
So instead why don’t you go on your own learning journey.  Start here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA302819.pdf and then use an internet search engine.
We build entire military offensive doctrine around the idea that we need to concentrate more force at the point of attack to overcome the benefits of the defence.  We also expect to take more losses in the short term, to achieve breakin, through and out, which sets up for annihilation through dislocation (some more stuff you can go look up).  The UA broke this rule regularly in this war by being either upside down or near 1:1.  How they did this is still a big question.
The RA has not demonstrated the same ability, in fact quite the opposite, they have had massive force ratio advantages (e.g. 12:1) and still failed.
This has been the underlying argument of pro-Russian “experts” (go online and Google anything by Col Macgregor) and the fears of mainstream analysts.  The narrative is that the UA cannot fight a war of attrition with Russia for various reasons.  We have repeatedly seen people point to tactical battles of attrition as proof that the Russian “strategy is working”.  Yet the UA keeps getting stronger while the RA erodes.  You can scan these pages to see it echoed at times.
Not really sure what you mean here.  I think we are agreeing loudly.  I am stating that Russia is not coming back from its losses in this war.  In fact some of this is not losses, it is shortfalls it had at the start of the war that it would need to build from scratch.
No it wasn’t. The significant contribution was C4ISR that allowed those munitions and boots to be used to effect.  Russia can get fancy self-loitering munitions, and they will make life difficult in some localized regions, but they do not have the operational level ISR to plug them into.
So the balloon saga was hilarious and an example of ISR pivoting going very wrong.  Pivoting strategic ISR is incredibly hard unless you have constructed a global architecture upon which to pivot from.  Take space based, those satellites are in specific orbits designed to fly over specifics target areas, reorientation is not easy or free - it spends fuel on birds that do not have unlimited supply.  So the answer is put enough up that you need only swing feeds to a different bird.  So China may have some ISR constellations up there but their orbits are aimed at covering the South China Sea.  
Other Strat platforms such as high altitude aircraft or UAS are pretty limited and need to be supported, so now we are talking about extending their range, so more fuel and support with the infrastructure to back it up.  China is still regionally focused so asking it to retask platforms designed to focus on Asia all the way over to Eastern Europe (and not get detected) is well outside of any capability they have demonstrated - perhaps you can do some legwork on that and come back.
Finally, even if China could pivot there is not evidence that the RA can plug into their systems.  A lot of this is crypto and link systems.  The UA trained with the West for 8 years and likely got a backbone up and running quickly.  Not so sure China and Russia are tight enough to be getting that intimate with highly classified systems.
But hey, trying not to talk myself into “safe spaces”.
Then I would say you have a lot more reading to do.  One of those “things” is logistics and sustainment and Russia’s failure to master that led to the entire northern front collapsing.  
Seriously, every now and then some clever academic poses that the operational level “is not a thing”, which sounds cool until you ask “ok, so who is going to do all the operational level stuff”?  Most of the operational level is marshalling and distribution of enablers that provide and sustain tactical advantage, linking tactical actions together into a coherent campaign and shaping effects to set overall battlefield conditions - but hey, what do I know?
So what I want you and everyone to do is measure the length of the RA front, from the tippy tip of that thing past Kherson to the far right flank at the border in the north of Luhansk. Now take that number and divide the number of Russian troops in-country by it.  Now take that number and divide it in half.  Ok, now that number is the total number of troops per km the RA has to defend what it has taken. That number includes any troop rotations and counter move forces.
Now take 20k off the overall number of the RA and plug it in.  What does it do to that troop density per km? Now do 30k.  Now 40k.  This is the RA problem.  Now before anyone pipes up - no, it is not that linear.  The line will need to be much denser in close terrain and less in the open.  Water obstacles will help as well.  But if you want to get technical this also does not allow for a lot of depth, and a 50-50 tooth to tail ratio is extremely generous.
Further, the RA does not have ISR that allows them to leave part of the line unmanned - the UA does because they can see and react before the RA crosses the start line.  So the RA has to sustain that troop density, they have to enable it.  The UA needs only to find the holes and make them worse.
Once you have done the math in the previous step, rethink this last part.  
And this is a military that was very badly mauled last year.  It does not have a western-backstop.  It was missing what it needed for a job this size from the outset.  It has not solved for AirPower (that is a big one).  It has not been able to attack UA C4ISR directly in any meaningful way.  It has not been able to erode UA LOCs.
So, yes, I am sure things are very bad at Bakhmut but until we see something that say all that is changing, or failing more quickly on the UA side, this thing is still going in one direction.

There are rumors. And there are my rumors. That's two different kinds of rumors.
[EDIT] To clarify - there is specific context that confirms this rumor. Since rumor appeared Wagnerites were cut off from recruiting zeks and were cut off from generous ammo supply. Their core units were litteraly thrown at UKR with little arty support.
 

I disagree with Kofman.
Wagnerites, for example, had ceased taking Zek for at least one month prior. In Bakhmut, the core Wagnerites are being crushed. Prig recently asked Zelensky to leave Bakkhmut - if a Russian makes you a generous offer to quit the battle, it is an indicator that he is in deep sh*t and wishes you to leave him alone. Victorious Russian would never offer you anything.
BTW, rumors are RU MOD decided to grind Wagnerites in Bakhmut, to make Prig less dangerous. 

No we are not.  I have not posted my military resume for some very good reasons, but let’s just say it is extensive.  And there are a lot of other business experts posting here as well.  A guy I work with noted that we are one of the few professions that has to put up with this much amateur armchair quarterbacking - pretty sure chest surgeons are not on a forum trying to explain by-pass surgery to a bunch of guys who played Surgeon Simulator 2, and then get accused of “talking down”. (Who am I kidding it is 2023…)
Ok, so the “curve” you are boiling this down to appears to be a magic 65000 troops to do a break out battle in the south before the RA can (and here you get a bit muddy) - get reinforcements or Chinese-backed capability in place to deny it until the Second Coming?  So a force generation competition “curve” with some pretty vague components.  Or more simply put “the curve of the UA generating Attack faster than the RA can generate Defence” and based on your assessment Ukraine is behind that “curve”?
Ok, let’s just put all the other inconvenient facts about force generation to the side - because why would we need any of that getting in the way? - and roll straight into your simple model.
Yes, your wargaming experience has taught you well….attacking is hard and costly because you have to get out of your hole, move in the open into defences that are by-design aimed at skewing force ratios…at a tactical level.  At operational and strategic level Defence becomes far more costly because of frontage and depth.  Now if all you have to do is defend a narrow defile in Greece - with a ridiculous Scottish accent - your problem is pretty easy.  If you are defending about 800kms of frontage in depth of land you stole, from an opponent with all the ISR and accelerating levels of precision strike while your own AirPower is not working and getting blown up in strange smoking accidents…well let’s just say your Defensive curve is pretty f#cking steep.
So while we are clearly at “Amateur Pearl Clutching Day” again - oh, I tried polite, but the gods of Dunning-Kruger and “I have an internet connection” clearly rule these lands, so we are at “Grasshopper”; unfortunately you are not in range of a well aimed rice bowl being tossed at your head - just employing your adorable little model, Russia’a defensive problem is absolutely enormous.  Like epic historical big.  Way back we did some back-of-cigarette-pack estimates that the RA would need around 1.5 million troops in-country to secure that line in something that resembles completely air tight. And last I checked they are no where near that “curve”.  In fact even employing old Defensive ratios the RA would need around 20k effective troops (meaning at equal or better quality) to defend against this 65k being generated in the UA backfield…in the right location and able to react quickly enough, and supported/enabled, to counter along a 800km front.  So you tell me, in your well informed opinion, just where the RA is on their force  generation curve to solve that one?
Ok, back to UA problem. 65k troops is the number that came out of that EU report.  It is roughly 3-4 Divisions, really a modern Corps and a heavy one.  If the UA had that force today on top of what they are employing to bleed the RA white, this war would likely be over in a few weeks. In all three major UA operational offensives the UA did not need anywhere near that level of mass.  All three were variations on the theme of corrosive systemic collapses that were projected onto the RA, they were done with frankly baffling force ratio closer to 1:1 or in the case of Kyiv completely upside down.  
So what?  Well first off Attack-Defence ratios are in the wind, at least on the UA side.  They retook Kherson at a 1.5:1 attacker to defender ratio, while successfully defended Kyiv at as high as a 1:12 defender ratio.  The RA has had nearly an inverse result, massive overmatch ratios do not work, nor do traditional defensive ones.  The determinative factor appear to be ISR advantage, combined with an ability to generate ersatz Air superiority through deep precision strike.  Bottom line, there is not much good news for the RA with respect to mass.
Next, corrosive strategies are a thing.  The RA did not simply “over-extend” they were made to be “over-extended” by cutting up their entire military system front to back.  Even if they dig in - and based on the ground they have to cover, it will be shallow - they are not immune to whatever this thing is.  All those minefield are useless if the guns covering them are dead or cannot get ammo.  Nor can the RA plug holes if their C2 is slow (it is) their LOCs visible and hittable (they are) and they do not have robust logistics to sustain a counter move (they do not).
So when I hear Ukraine shooting for 65k, I do not think “hmm clearly this is what they need to win this war”, I think “hmm, Ukraine is already thinking about the next one”.  Regardless, based on the steady stream of hints - ATACMS training, whisperers of engineer equipment and a steady stream of troop training going on all over freakin Europe, I am betting the UA is actually ahead of “the curve” for a spring-summer offensive when compared the the RA problem-set.  Will it be easy? Of course not.  Is the UA demonstrating that is is near a breaking point - not even close.  The large drunken guy swinging in the bar right now looks like he also has stage 4 pancreatic cancer, and it ain’t Ukraine.
Now I would really like to unpack the southern axis Melitopol problem based on what we do know but that will have to wait a bit.

Ref Bahkmut... Well I know almost nothing about the real situation and I'm not military but.. The folks leading this defense are the same officer cadres that defeated Kyiv, retook Kherson, led the Kharkiv offensive, crushed the Siversky-Donets crossing,  etc.  They've fought the Ivan every inch of the Bakhmut AO so far without the defending forces falling apart, and any actual retreat seems like it'll be controlled and careful. 
My bet is on Ukraine. 
 

Let's talk about the Russian economy. The following are notes from an interview with RU economist Milov. This is the point of view of the RU Liberals, but it is backed up by proof.
 

One thing about this war that I find very frustrating is that we, the collective West, seem to constantly allow Russia to define much of the narrative. It's usually not too difficult to expose their lies, but we appear to always allow them to first make accusations, to which we then respond. Maybe it's just the impression that I have, but I would really like to see the West go much more over to the PR offensive. Let's put Hollywood and 5th Avenue to work on this.
The Russians are the biggest bunch of pearl clutching, hippocritical Karen's on the planet. I find it disgusting how they were all a bunch of "good little Athiests" during the Soviet era. Now, their same leaders, including Putin, have suddenly found God. Naturally, he's on their side. It's just so transparent. They also scream about how NATO is defacto an active participant in this war, which is complete BS. Our armies are not shooting at anyone. Yet, nobody points out that the Soviets not only sent everything but the kitchen sink to Korea in the 1950s, they also sent Russian pilots, who were actively engaged in combat with American forces.
We need to go after them mercilessly on the public relations front. I think it would also help to educate so many in the general public, all over the world, who suffer from selective memory loss and continue to want to give these scum bags the benefit of doubt and give deference to the point of view of those "poor Russians who are just acting out because they feel threatened."
Boy, I just needed to rant for a minute today.

Ah yes the infamous "Canadian Ukrainian Volunteer".
Speaking of being able to tell between fantasy and reality, it turns out the movie Under Siege lied to us. Steven Seagal turned out to be the bad guy and Tommy Lee Jones turned out to be the good guy. 🙂
But seriously I always liked Tommy Lee Jones and this video makes me like him even more. 
 

if the dems had voted for McCarthy it would have been a blowout on the first vote.  McCarthy only has to worry about votes where the Dems will vote against.  This isn't one of those.  Gaetz, Boebert and Greene may get some tv airtime but if the GOP house members want to pass Ukraine aid there is nothing to stop them.  A year ago the House voted 361-69 for a 1.5 trillion-dollar bill that included Ukraine aid.

McCaul accuses Biden administration of ‘slow walking’ aid to Ukraine (yahoo.com)
Still worried about the GOP position?
 

It's going to be difficult for a politician to overcome this type of sentiment and turn their back on Ukraine.  Brad Paisley is a country icon---his words and songs carry weight amongst voters--especially conservative Republican voters in the South.  Listen towards the end, Zelensky speaks directly in the song.  I'm still on my hill.
 

Not sure if this has been posted yet but I found this a fascinating read about the build up and first few days from within the US administration (plus some little bits from the UKs worst ever Prime Minister) in their own words
‘Something Was Badly Wrong’: When Washington Realized Russia Was Actually Invading Ukraine - POLITICO