That is a legitimate question. Russia was perceived to have had the second most capable army on the planet until they were shown to be something far less. The potential capabilities of their systems led to that original estimate. What was largely unknown was the actual status of their doctrine, training, and organization. That is what has been shown to be pretty bad by US standards.
However, victory has a way of healing a lot of injury. We, and by that I mean the US defense establishment, would assume that Russia will take a litany of lessons learned from this fiasco to apply to their post conflict armed forces in organization, training, and materiel design and acquisition. Being able to do that in the wake of a successful conclusion to this war will be far easier, both economically and politically. Anything that Russia adds as new territory will be an economic bonanza that will help fuel that renaissance.
Defeat, on the other hand, opens the door much wider for corrective measures. Rather than merely fixing an army, perhaps Russia will work at finally fixing their government and national aspirations as well. There are Russians who imagine a state rich in natural resources working closely with Western Europe. Imagine a Russia a generation from now as a contributing member to the EU rather than a 19th century empire threatening all who surround it.
They may also again revert to type. But there too, should this Special Military Operation be perceived as something far less than successful, it will be a generation or more before they again represent a meaningful conventional threat to the West.
Whatever direction Russia takes, Ukraine and its people will have fought and won their right to self-determination. They will have a foundation story, like our revolution, that will unite them for generations. Rather than being yet another subject people under a Russian bootheel, they will have the opportunity to chart a future allied economically, culturally, and politically with Western Europe. Considering some of our bad choices since World War II, in what world is that not in our interests.
Finally, this cost thing is truly an argument for the uninformed. This country spent 6+ trillion dollars last year. The pittance we provided Ukraine truly is a round-off number. Moreover, fully half the defense related contribution was materiel taken out of US storage. An outdated Bradley sitting in the desert will never again carry US troops. Demilling it to scrap metal is incredibly expensive. When we give it to Ukraine, its value (after all tax dollars purchased it) is deducted from the funds allocated to Ukraine. It is an accounting drill. That is true of combat platforms and most munitions we have provided.
Also, this notion that Europe isn't doing their part is another argument for the ignorant. I assume you would agree that if you donated a million dollars to the Red Cross and Warren Buffet did the same that though it would be equal from the perspective of the charity, it would not be exactly the same thing from a donation perspective. You could argue very persuasively that your donation was far more meaningful. The same is true with regard to supporting Ukraine. The US has donated to date approximately .03 % (as in POINT ZERO THREE) of its GDP to the effort in Ukraine. Poland, on the other hand has commited .5% and provided shelter for a million Ukrainian refugees. From a GDP perspective, the US is not quite middle of the pack.
This is as clear an effort in our national interests as I have seen in my lifetime.
)
