I had this same discussion with several close friends of mine, and I always go back to equating this to the failure of Vietnam. Fighting a war with red lines and weapon restrictions will always lead to defeat.
The Ukraine was always going to be the smaller force. That was understood from the beginning. The logic that US tech will defeat Russian tech was on full display. The problem is that we provided the technology but never let Ukraine follow through with the overall doctrine that the US would have employed in this scenario. Manpower will always trump technology if you stretch the timeline by not allowing that technology to overwhelm the opposition. The US and the Biden administration ultimately failed Ukraine. Yes, we provided unparalleled aid, but we then dictated how that technology could be used. We supported the target acquisition aspects of Ukraine while also leaking aspects of the Ukrainian counter offensive plans in an attempt to manipulate their strategy. We drew lines on maps and tried to dictate plans of attack, while having a poor grasp of the capabilities of the troops in the field and the restrictions they were under. We never let Ukraine do what we would have done from a tactical standpoint. The targeting and usage restrictions made the technology advantage a hollow shell in comparison of what it could and should have been.
The path for victory was for the Ukraine to decimate the Russian forces in Crimea and the Donbas while holding elsewhere. Use the overwhelming technology advantage and lay waste to every mode of transportation into the combat theater and starve the Russian out figuratively and literally. Force everyone within 200 km of the theater to in essence have to walk or drive to the front. Make anywhere within 200 km of the front be a deadzone with no power, no food, no functional infrastructure. Decimate the Russian will to fight and the troops ability to move. Slow the flow of troops and supplies so the smaller Ukrainian force and easily repel the invaders. Instead, we got restrictions and staging areas 50 km from the front. This limits the ability to be reactionary and eventually the manpower disadvantage will lead to being overwhelmed.
If what we saw was the approach the outgoing administration considered appropriate and measured, then there was no hope for Ukraine to win with these restrictions. The counterattacks into Russian territory were too late to alter the war. The failure to allow the use of deep strike capabilities to cripple rail transportation of troops too the front allowed Russia to slowly overwhelm the eastern front through meat grinder zerg assaults. The decision to not allow attacks on NIP-16 satellite comm site until June this year was years too late. The US never let Ukraine force the Russia populace to live in fear of the war. We never let Ukraine approach this conflict the same way we would have, and in doing so Ukraine was tasked with the near impossible task of bleeding out Russia and trading soil for Russian blood and equipment.
In many ways, the hope for a settlement driven by Trump is now the only recourse. The only silver lining is that his hate and disdain for Iran and their continued involvement in supplying Russia with drones and ICBMs combined with his desire to limit China on the world stage will force a geopolitical squeeze on Russia. The only problem is that the Ukraine is now bargaining from a position of at best stalemate if not apparent weakness. I cannot come up with a scenario that Ukraine does not lose something in the negotiated outcome. Be it territory, be it historical claim to Crimea, be it the ability to join NATO, the war is now going to end at a huge political cost to Ukraine on top of the unimaginable destruction and loss of life.
The unwillingness to commit to total war has led to loss of an entire generation of men and women, which I fear Ukraine may never recover from. Make no mistake, this is all at the feet of the current administration and we need to take a hard look at why this turned out the way it did.