"Ukrainians, and many Europeans and Americans, are defining an envisioned Ukrainian victory as the complete expulsion of all Russians from its 2013 borders….What would that goal entail?"
So what? Russia's goal remains the integration of the annexed regions, regime change in Kyiv, separation of the non-integrated parts of Ukraine into a pro-Russian Eastern part and a western part left demilitarized and as an economic no man's land. But goal's change and no one has any idea of what will be acceptable to both sides for a peace agreement. I'd also point out many in the West would be content with a sovereign Ukraine with some territorial concessions. Other than the West cutting off Ukrainian supplies, which leads basically results in Russia achieving most if not all of the goals stated above.
"Giving Ukraine American F-16s to strike bases and depots in Mother Russia? The gifting of 1,000 M1 Abrams tanks? Using American Harpoon missiles to sink the Russian Black Sea fleet?"
This is a rhetorical question. So it doesn't deserve an answer but what are the options? Give Ukraine just enough so the war goes on for years? Don't give them anything so Russia occupies Ukraine?
"A huge arsenal that would guarantee total victory rather than not losing?"
A stupid question. Are the only alternatives "total victory" and "not losing"? How about convincing Russia that it can't achieve its goals, should get serious about ending the war and should negotiate.
"Russia's cruel strategy is to grind down Ukraine and turn its eastern regions into a Verdun-like deathscape."
Because they have no better option? What's Ukraine supposed to do about that? Give up? Surrender? By the way, the WWI comparison is somewhat over done. Yes, we've seen pictures of devastated towns and cities. I don't want to minimize that destruction but WWI involved 6 million British troops, 8 million French, 11 Million Germans, etc. and went on for 4 years. Not much more than 1 million troops have been mobilized on both sides for a war that's a year long over a front line at least as long as the WWI Western Front. But, again, what's Ukraine supposed to do?
"So is a brave Ukraine really winning the war when it loses about 0.6 soldiers for every Russian it kills?"
I've seen no reliable estimates for either side, so I cannot confirm any "kill ratio". I suspect by looking at other wars, troop concentrations, combat intensity, etc. that the numbers are overstated maybe even by a lot – even by "Western intelligence". (I'd like to know their sources and methodologies.)
"Russia plans to leverage its extra 100 million people, its 10-times larger economy, and its 30-times larger territory to pulverize Ukraine and tire its Western patrons — whatever the costs to Russia."
It's more correct to say that the Kremlin plans to leverage these things. It remains to be seen if the majority de-politicized Russians are willing to go along with it. Note – a lot of comparisons have been made to other wars when Russia was invaded; perhaps one should look at wars when Russia invaded. Also, in WWI the UK and France mobilized 6 million and 8 million troops out of populations similar to Ukraine's. In that war Russia mobilized 12 million out of a population similar to what it has now. Talking about the size of the Russian population is useless without discussing ability to train and equip as well as convincing citizens of Moscow and St. Petersburg to go along with it. I'm also curious as to how Russia is going to mobilize its territory for the invasion of Ukraine.
"Yet why were only a few in past administrations calling for a joint Western effort to expel Putin's forces from the borderlands and Crimea captured in 2014?"
Maybe it was mistake. Russia has nuclear weapons, so countering Russia is difficult, no? The past is the past. We're here now and we have to ask what would follow if Russia were to achieve its stated goals in Ukraine. Would the Baltics be next? Moldova? Romania? Poland? Putin has said enough to suggest that if he had walked over Ukraine he'd be encouraged to go on. He has said Russia is at war with the West. Maybe if someone says they're at war with you, you might want to take notice.
"Why are Putin's 2014 invasions now seen as urgent rectifiable crimes of aggression in 2022, but were not regarded as reparable during the prior eight years?"
That's a repeat of the above question.
"Is the United States economically capable or politically unified or socially stable enough to wage a huge proxy war on the frontiers of a nuclear Russia?"
Economically? Of course, it is. Politically and socially unified? Well that's a good question that applies to a lot more than Ukraine. And…yes, Russia has nuclear weapons. Unfortunately Putin has decided to use the threat of their use to support aggression. I'm not eager for nuclear war, but if we give in to these threats we encourage their use in the future by not only Russia but by other countries and that seems like a very dangerous world. Essentially we have to surrender to any demand made by those who use the threats. Note – I find it funny that people will on one hand talk about not confronting Putin because of nuclear weapons and on the other hand talk about the need to confront China. Last I knew, China had nuclear weapons.
Finally, I'd rather listen to someone who knows something about Russia and Ukraine Looking at VDH's resume it doesn't seem he has much knowledge about either. For the most part the questions are begging answers and therefore don't really warrant as much attention as I've given them above. It's not that there aren't issues to be discussed but "begging answers" is a trick by the author rather than an initiation to a meaningful discussion, but I guess that's back to the one question is does warrant thought, "is the US politically and socially unified?" And the follow on to that are, "how does that threaten our democracy?" "How do we correct that?"
Oh well, enough pontificating. LoL