[Goose]

Lift all restrictions (not publicly?),

IMO the US should remove all restrictions on donated weapon use. The involvement of North Korean combat troops should be cited as massive escalation by Russia and used as the justification for the US response. I would also create a program (ostensibly administered by Ukraine) that would allow active duty and reserve F-16 pilots (and ground crew) to resign their commissions and "go to work for Ukraine". One may recognize the "Flying Tigers" as the forerunner of this concept. I am sure enough pilots would take the opportunity to go fight. There would be an understanding that these pilots could re-enlist at a later date in the USAF and be restored to their previous rank and seniority. This is absolutely justified. Russia is using "mercenaries" on a massive scale who are in fact still part of the North Korean military. These few hundred "volunteers" that are in no way connected to the USAF any more are a pittance by comparison.

deliver all promised equipment with greatest haste.

We have very recently been doing better in this regard as Ukraine has publicly stated. However, IMO the problem remains that the war in Ukraine is not at all a priority for the US DoD and its constituent parts. There is no "mission requirement" officially in place specifying what the objectives are and who is responsible for doing what. Support of Ukraine is treated as a low-priority collateral duty. It is done on an ad-hoc basis with nobody having the responsibility of being "successful". Unless and until that changes, the results will not be good.

Donate all equipment slated for decommissioning/scrap.

IMO we can easily "over-do it".  We should have as objectives the establishment of certain capabilities in Ukraine that will help them win the war. Trying to do everything at once will not help. OTOH we should support programs that can work. We have plenty of F-16s that we can donate. That should become a "program of record". Everything should be on the table, but only those things Ukraine can actually use should be sent "immediately". New requirements will emerge that will require changing what we send. Nothing in our "surplus" inventory should be off limits.

I do wonder whether too *much* support from the US causes European neighbors to say "it's alright, they don't need our help."  Would be disappointing.  In a perfect world, more US support causes other nations to rally and do likewise.

IMO the Europeans are not deterred by how much the US sends. They know Ukraine is a basket case. Their problems are domestic politics, budget limitations, and industrial limitations. We have problems in the US military budget but they are nothing compared to what the Europeans face. Sad but true.

Certainly more money and food would help, although domestic politics would be up in arms about that (esp since Russia seems to have a hand in firing up domestic sentiment counter to pro-Ukraine efforts).

Ukraine is going to need more money just to run their government, let alone their civilian economy. Maybe the Europeans can do more there. It is reality though.

[Goose]

Lift all restrictions (not publicly?),

IMO the US should remove all restrictions on donated weapon use. The involvement of North Korean combat troops should be cited as massive escalation by Russia and used as the justification for the US response. I would also create a program (ostensibly administered by Ukraine) that would allow active duty and reserve F-16 pilots (and ground crew) to resign their commissions and "go to work for Ukraine". One may recognize the "Flying Tigers" as the forerunner of this concept. I am sure enough pilots would take the opportunity to go fight. There would be an understanding that these pilots could re-enlist at a later date in the USAF and be restored to their previous rank and seniority. This is absolutely justified. Russia is using "mercenaries" on a massive scale who are in fact still part of the North Korean military. These few hundred "volunteers" that are in no way connected to the USAF any more are a pittance by comparison.

deliver all promised equipment with greatest haste.

We have very recently been doing better in this regard as Ukraine has publicly stated. However, IMO the problem remains that the war in Ukraine is not at all a priority for the US DoD and its constituent parts. There is no "mission requirement" officially in place specifying what the objectives are and who is responsible for doing what. Support of Ukraine is treated as a low-priority collateral duty. It is done on an ad-hoc basis with nobody having the responsibility of being "successful". Unless and until that changes, the results will not be good.

Donate all equipment slated for decommissioning/scrap.

IMO we can easily "over-do it".  We should have as objectives the establishment of certain capabilities in Ukraine that will help them win the war. Trying to do everything at once will not help. OTOH we should support programs that can work. We have plenty of F-16s that we can donate. That should become a "program of record". Everything should be on the table, but only those things Ukraine can actually use should be sent "immediately". New requirements will emerge that will require changing what we send. Nothing in our "surplus" inventory should be off limits.

I do wonder whether too *much* support from the US causes European neighbors to say "it's alright, they don't need our help."  Would be disappointing.  In a perfect world, more US support causes other nations to rally and do likewise.

IMO the Europeans are not deterred by how much the US sends. They know Ukraine is a basket case. Their problems are domestic politics, budget limitations, and industrial limitations. We have problems in the US military budget but they are nothing compared to what the Europeans face. Sad but true.

Certainly more money and food would help, although domestic politics would be up in arms about that (esp since Russia seems to have a hand in firing up domestic sentiment counter to pro-Ukraine efforts).

Ukraine is going to need more money just to run their government, let alone their civilian economy. Maybe the Europeans can do more there. It is reality though.