[GK3]

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.

Just keeping on doing what we have been doing, even when it isn't working has been in my opinion the hallmark of our war efforts since Vietnam. Even more worrisome in the Ukraine situation is that I am not sure we ever had an objective that we wanted to achieve and were willing to pay for other than the rather nebulous  "peace". I do not think that Putin has any intention of negotiating any kind of real peace that basically doesn't give him Ukraine or at least most of it. I am sure there is also the concern that if we get too involved then there will be direct US/NATO vs Russia conflict.
A big question is whether a direct NATO/Russian conflict is a foregone conclusion and we are just kicking the can down the road or there is some sort of off ramp that allows both sides to save face and not lose too much one way or the other, except of course all those Russian and Ukrainians  who have died or become wounded already.  Unfortunately, what works for NATO as a solution may well not work for Putin.  I do not think weakness or willing to settle for far less than he expected to achieve will work for Putin. My guess Putin is in it for the long haul or at least until he either wins or falls out of one of the Russian hotel windows.

[GK3]

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.

Just keeping on doing what we have been doing, even when it isn't working has been in my opinion the hallmark of our war efforts since Vietnam. Even more worrisome in the Ukraine situation is that I am not sure we ever had an objective that we wanted to achieve and were willing to pay for other than the rather nebulous  "peace". I do not think that Putin has any intention of negotiating any kind of real peace that basically doesn't give him Ukraine or at least most of it. I am sure there is also the concern that if we get too involved then there will be direct US/NATO vs Russia conflict.
A big question is whether a direct NATO/Russian conflict is a foregone conclusion and we are just kicking the can down the road or there is some sort of off ramp that allows both sides to save face and not lose too much one way or the other, except of course all those Russian and Ukrainians  who have died or become wounded already.  Unfortunately, what works for NATO as a solution may well not work for Putin.  I do not think weakness or willing to settle for far less than he expected to achieve will work for Putin. My guess Putin is in it for the long haul or at least until he either wins or falls out of one of the Russian hotel windows.