I can imagine a Ukrainian victory where NATO-trained troops, combined with arms from the west and U.S. intelligence allow Ukraine to start a counteroffensive attack, move dramatically, use ATACMS and the lime to cut Russian supply trains and encircle them, delivering an absolute victory.
I can imagine a Ukrainian defeat where poor Ukrainian leadership and lack of ammunition (firearms, mortars, etc.) lead to a long quagmire and then US domestic politics leads to us looking for a diplomatic exit path.
I hope the odds on the latter are low, real low. That said, the US public has a short attention span and doesn’t like to back losers. No CR, but I can name precious few US politicians from either party that aren’t front runners. (We’re only backing Ukraine as much as we are because they looked like winners early on).
That would be a big problem. The POTUSA went to Kyev and said we were backing them for as long as it takes. They have a paved stone with his name on it. I was proud of him for doing it, not for how it looked, but for the commitment that it meant.
My feeling is that the way you win a close fight is by putting all you can into it, because the other side is doing the same. Russia is pouring men into what they, themselves, are calling a meat grinder, but if they can pull something out of this that they can call a “win”, they’ll consider it worth it.
And it will be a long while before anyone takes the US seriously again.
That’s why I think the US should be spending a hell of a lot more on defense, enough to go onto a wartime footing in ammo production. Anything less, using reserves and hoping they’re not needed for a new shooting war, is just trying to thread a needle to a happy outcome. It’s a strategy based on hope.