The old saying “it’s not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog” is something that is clearly rejected by some, including some of our beloved Bereans, when considering Ukraine. I have called for victory, if that is what the Ukrainians want, and suggested that they should be the primary drivers of what victory should look like. In one sense, the critiques of Ukraine continuing to fight are right–in war, everybody loses. The longer the war goes on, the more they lose. And yet, the economic principle of sunk cost comes even into war. Costs already paid are irrelevant, whether in blood or treasure. Any rational cost calculus is always prospectively looking forward to the future. The Ukrainians of course want peace. But they don’t want to live under the Russian boot, and they don’t want to be fighting yet again in the future when Russia has more time to regroup and come back for a bigger bite. So if they can outlast the Russians, at say the cost of more lives, they may secure freedom and the lives of many more in the future.

One of our commenters has said multiple times that this is a war of attrition, one that a much smaller Ukraine cannot win. There are at least two rebuttals to this view. First, size doesn’t matter much, as our recent indignation in Afghanistan should show, and many cases in history confirm this (consider our history in Vietnam or the Soviet’s Afghanistan experience as well). War continues until one side loses the will to continue fighting. Many have warned us that Russia cares much more about Ukraine than we do, and that they will outlast us. This is no doubt true, if we were fighting and dying in Ukraine as they are. But the question is does Russia care more about Ukraine than Ukraine cares about Ukraine. I don’t think they do. The Russian people want peace, and don’t want the inflation, and Putin’s already had one internal rebellion. The internal cracks and fissures within Russia are far greater than within Ukraine. One country is fighting for national pride, and one country is fighting for national survival. Which country would you expect to outlast the other? But, what do you think happens to Ukrainian morale and Russian morale when Mr. Trump pivots away from Ukraine to Russia?

But another more important question is why are we doomed to a war of attrition? This is in large part because of the delayed delivery of weapons by Mr. Biden, and then applying restrictions on how the Ukrainians could use those weapons. My hope had been that Mr. Trump would end both of those; instead he has gone much the worse direction by denying intelligence sharing and suspending military support. Mr. Biden got a C for Ukraine, but Mr. Trump is getting an F. The U.S. military position for decades has always been to face down superior numbers with technologically superior and better trained military. The Warsaw Pact countries were much larger than NATO, but they dared not face off NATO given the technological edge we held. Mr. Biden directly, and Mr. Trump implicitly worry about “escalation” should we equip Ukraine for victory. This is a case not of if the war is winnable, but if we are willing to allow it to be won. Do we have the will for victory?

If we continue to support Ukraine, and if we stop the shackles that Mr. Biden put on them, I expect them to be able to outlast Russia to gain a negotiable peace that they would consider at least more just. If we provide additional more sophisticated weapons, they could inflict more pain, and recapture much of their territory. If we then used the seized Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine, they would be able to move on. This is no time for Mr. Trump to get weak in the knees, this is a time to demonstrate the peace through strength he repeatedly bellows. Victory (as defined by the Ukrainians) is still possible. Indeed, if Mr. Trump were to fully support the Ukrainians, it would be highly likely.