[Goose]

Some here said that the last administration's Ukraine policy was a terrible middle ground because it was costly and prolonged the war, but didn't give Ukraine a good chance to actually win.  I'm not sure whether the prior administration's pace and level of support was sufficient, but I do know one thing: The last billion dollars that we're in the process of drawing down is a waste unless the West follows it up with a whole lot more military aid (not reconstruction aid).  

Assuming everyone agrees with that premise, then, in a sane world, we could reach this reasonable conclusion:  Given that the last billion in authorized military aid will not make a substantial difference in the war, the fact that we are actually spending that billion suggests that we are open to the possibility of spending the more that will be necessary to actually make a substantial difference in the war. 

My fingers are crossed that I've got it right.  To be clear, I have heard nothing to suggest that I'm right, and I'm concerned that key U.S. officials have no intention of supporting additional military aid authorization.

IMO the previous administration's policy was ill-advised because it did not articulate a plan for Ukraine to win. It became increasingly clear that no such plan existed, or if it did, it had failed. Confronted with that situation, no "new" plan was made. We just kept doing what we were doing and hoped that eventually Russia would quit. Hope is not a plan.
 
Your reasoning that if the present administration is willing to spend the already appropriated money it must believe doing so will be efficacious. However, it is quite possible the present administration believes it will be politically efficacious, not militarily efficacious. They may believe that this show of support for Ukraine will convince Putin the US isn't going to abandon Ukraine and that he can't get what he wants militarily. Putin will then accept a ceasefire and a negotiated peace. I am uncertain that I believe the present administration has a plan either. Its initial plan was to force Ukraine to accept a peace that would please Putin. When neither Putin nor Ukraine were willing to go along the administration had no answer. They too are continuing to do what we did before and hoping Putin will "be reasonable". If that does not happen, I have no idea at all what the administration might do.

[Goose]

Some here said that the last administration's Ukraine policy was a terrible middle ground because it was costly and prolonged the war, but didn't give Ukraine a good chance to actually win.  I'm not sure whether the prior administration's pace and level of support was sufficient, but I do know one thing: The last billion dollars that we're in the process of drawing down is a waste unless the West follows it up with a whole lot more military aid (not reconstruction aid).  

Assuming everyone agrees with that premise, then, in a sane world, we could reach this reasonable conclusion:  Given that the last billion in authorized military aid will not make a substantial difference in the war, the fact that we are actually spending that billion suggests that we are open to the possibility of spending the more that will be necessary to actually make a substantial difference in the war. 

My fingers are crossed that I've got it right.  To be clear, I have heard nothing to suggest that I'm right, and I'm concerned that key U.S. officials have no intention of supporting additional military aid authorization.

IMO the previous administration's policy was ill-advised because it did not articulate a plan for Ukraine to win. It became increasingly clear that no such plan existed, or if it did, it had failed. Confronted with that situation, no "new" plan was made. We just kept doing what we were doing and hoped that eventually Russia would quit. Hope is not a plan.
 
Your reasoning that if the present administration is willing to spend the already appropriated money it must believe doing so will be efficacious. However, it is quite possible the present administration believes it will be politically efficacious, not militarily efficacious. They may believe that this show of support for Ukraine will convince Putin the US isn't going to abandon Ukraine and that he can't get what he wants militarily. Putin will then accept a ceasefire and a negotiated peace. I am uncertain that I believe the present administration has a plan either. Its initial plan was to force Ukraine to accept a peace that would please Putin. When neither Putin nor Ukraine were willing to go along the administration had no answer. They too are continuing to do what we did before and hoping Putin will "be reasonable". If that does not happen, I have no idea at all what the administration might do.