It is obvious Trump wants the war over and by tapping Kellog to be his envoy it implies that the direction they are going to go is similar to what Kellog and Fleitz proposed in June. That was a full stop everywhere and an eventual rollback to 2022 borders and delaying Ukrainian NATO membership for 10 years or so to allow Russia time to plan for these new eventualities and then some type of carrot for both Russia and the Ukraine as far as rebuilding goes. If Russia doesn't agree, the idea was full-on crippling sanctions of Russia and anyone doing any form of trade with Russia (so no oil caps for the sale of Russia oil to India, straight embargo, no 3rd party sales of anything to Russia, no electronic access to anything from the rest of the world) and the gloves come off militarily in how we provide aid. The problem now is since June when the plan was developed Ukraine is in a worse position and much of that can be attributed to a failure by the prior administration to let them fight the war the way it needed to be fought.
Looking back in retrospect, I think it is fairly obvious that the prior administration (and to some extent the EU) was more interested in winning the PR war than the Ukraine war. The assumption was winning the PR war would mean the real war would follow in line.
I will use the delivery of the F15s as an example. We spent a huge amount of time and money dedicated to training, equipping, and maintaining these systems, but all they are being used for is drone and cruise missile interdiction. No hardcore attacks with air-ground systems to wipe out the Kerch bridge. No systematic destruction over Crimea via the Black Sea. We provided Ukraine with a super expensive toy that should be an extreme force multiplier. Still, due to a variety of reasons, it is a net waste of capital and time if compared with more conventional weapons systems of the same value.
How many decisions mirror this? I applaud the initial idea of sending Abrams, but it is painfully obvious the Bradley is much better suited for this war and yet we still have approximately 1500 still in storage. From a MRO standpoint, why not admit the Abrams are not what is needed and swap them out 2 for 1 with Bradleys? Simplify the MRO side and provide Ukraine what they can use more effectively. The red lines with the ATCAMS, the limiting of weapon systems uses and variants.
It is sad to say that I have much greater hope that there will be a "positive" result with Trump than I am with Biden. It won't be what I want, but I don't think the 2 or 4 more years of a slow grinding war is something I can stomach either.