Eh, some depts. you might be able to 'shake-up' a bit with some fresh ideas and energy. I seriously doubt DoD is one of them (that's polite for impossible). Even the ones that might be subject to 'revitalization' are not going to vitalize all that much in a 1-4 yr horizon. Civil Service reform is a generational project.
Plus, it depends on what the actual 'strategery' here is... I haven't seen anything about the grand plan for DoD yet -- just the pick. Is there a grand strategy?
On the other hand, if Trump seriously is going after Dept Ed (for example)... I wouldn't discount the 'comedic effect' of having Musk/Vivek with inside access to Ed meetings/comms etc. and having the teams to expose (selectively, of course) the reasons the GenPub would want to see Ed dispersed.
Like most things, it comes down to execution; and based on the last go-round, I'm not particularly impressed by Trump's ability to execute... but this time is new.
The first part of his 'Wikipedia CV' reminds you of that really interesting Special Teams Coach that might just make a good head coach some day. Some team might take a gamble on him and win/lose bigly.
The second part of his 'Wikipedia CV' reminds you of the Special Teams Coach who was too good looking to waste his time learning what it would take to become a good head coach some day, so he went into broadcasting.
DoD is tough; not sure I'd gamble on a pick like this... he was rumored for Veterans Affairs last time -- that seems about right.
Yeah, I don't recall Nixon, Ford, or Carter ever saying anything... seemed mostly the big Federalists/Anti-Federalists, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, T.Roosevelt and FDR... not sure if Eisenhower said anything ... oh, and probably Kennedy but that was last one.
Of course, this is from a 45 yr memory, so I'm likely leaving out some McKinley bon mots and what not.
But I don't think there was any particular expectation that the latest one should be featured or say anything... would've been kinda weird, given that the new guys were still alive to say actual things.
Back in the 70s the HoP was lowkey kind of a big deal -- it's one of my better memories of the various Disney trips -- partly because it was air conditioned and gave you a 30 minute break -- but it always kinda tied the Disney experience back to America past and present... it was very on-brand: Fort Wilderness, Frontierland, to Tomorrowland and Progress. Disney's future was always an American future.
Things 'as they are' are inconsistent across 50 states.
Nothing matters for *this* election... I have no predictions or dire forecasts.
My position is longstanding and pre-dates 2020... I think the US ought to invest in a re-assessment of voting procedures to update some with modern conveniences while moderating others that are out of whack with design requirements (i.e. Neutral and Safe) and to help some states get out from under accretions of idiosyncratic voting regulations that can only be undone under a larger (bipartisan) umbrella.
It's a project, not a response to any one particular thing.
That isn't how you build systems, though. If your failure mode is right there in the design, but it only fails catastrophically when it fails catastrophically, it still fails in exactly the way you designed it (and maybe in a couple ways you didn't design).
As I mention in the first post... high trust/high collaboration is an assumption we should not take as baseline.
Sure... no reason not to. I'd want to see better process controls over the rolls and who's voted so far -- not to mention a good system for pre-counting (or not pre-counting?) that has 0% chance of leaking prior to election day?
I've seen a suggestion that the following day should be 'National Counting Day' and I have a notion that it's good in theory, but could see issues with leaky counts and an overwhelming need to predict the winner on exit polls alone... but hey, throw it in the mix.
"Justify requiring those states to maintain a second poorer-performing parallel precinct system"
Fair enough... it solves for only one vector of a problem - how to make voting ubiquitous, easy and provide a secure audit trail.
It doesn't solve for how do you provide a neutral and protected space to cast a vote.
You could, perhaps, double down on ubiquitous by removing some of the easy by requiring uploading some version of testing software that interacts with phones/cameras to prove that the Ballot is cast without interference. For example.
Again, I refer back to the DNC sponsored commercial... what if the worm turned and the DNC sponsered a commercial showing how women (or Men, pace InMD) are forced to fill out their mail-in ballot under the oppressive eye of their spouse. [or employer, or union, or precinct warden, or...]
I'm sure you're right... but honestly, I think your state is going too far in the other direction.
"Some of the latter group actually discourage, at least indirectly, in-person voting. My state is one of those, with warnings that in-person election-day voting may require a lengthy drive and long wait."
But that's part of the point of the project... elections across 50 states require adequate funding and tooling and training plus some flexibility unique to various contingencies -- but within certain parameters.
In the best possible scenario it's a national unity project which will get buy-in from the vast majority -- even as it gores various oxen from place to place.
Strikes me more as something that might happen after Trump passes from the stage, but perhaps not before the left also has occasion to become election deniers anew.
Oh, right, I sometimes forget the perqs of being the odd Catholic Distributist Crank that no one gets or takes seriously. Some of you have reputations to uphold.
Yeah, this isn't a BSDI post... I think it's good policy for the US to update what's clearly a voting system that is eroding legitimacy owing to 50 different polities using different methods and processes and timelines to determine Federal elections.
Much of that is a Constitutional artifact; but Congress has limited authority to mandate certain standards; but more importantly, taking what seems to work... let's say VBM in some Western States and Electric counting in FL and providing additional (bi-partisan) funding/standards is the goal here.
It really would be more of a Political Capital project than a one-party 'fixes' the systems sort of thing.
This is veering off topic a bit... but I have an emerging concern that the Polling/Vibes situation is going to cause grief if Harris wins.
Right now the Polling says it's a toss-up; but the 'vibes' are all... [whispers] probably Trump.
If Trump wins, then people go... yeah, I was afraid of that, but whatch'a gonna do?
If Harris wins with Trump vibing? Ugh, worst case scenario.
I don't think there will be a 'coup' ... just all sorts of lawfare and a further erosion of legitimacy. The point isn't that this particular election will be fraudulent, its that we need election processes to be bullet proof from a perception point of view. Having 50 different election processes worked when the 50 states had higher internal trust (very high trust in Chicago, I might add) but like a lot of things that worked one way with lower tech, and a different way with mid-tech, we're falling behind with high-tech. We should invest in the voting process.
I low-key thought Biden should have spent capital on Voting Process Legitimacy efforts -- which would've likely required a concession on Voter ID in exchange for unified agreement on Mail-in voting/counting/processes with restrictions on who can VBM, bans on States discussing early voting demographics, a National holiday for election day, etc. etc. All designed to shore up the *legitimacy* of the process, not the usual slap fights over turn-out suppression real or imagined.
I'm glad that congress spend *some* capital on reforming the Electoral Count Act, so that's something... but now I wish we'd spent more on Congress establishing baseline requirements -- which I believe they can do constitutionally -- for the States to follow.
Finally, I know folks here are very pro-VBM... I'm not against it, entirely, I just have qualms that it works well as trust erodes. Like, it's a high-trust/high-collaboration method of voting. And we're not high-trust/high-collaboration anymore.
To whit, I find it amusing that the DNC is running ads showing Women exchanging knowing glances *at a polling place* and voting for Harris to 'betray' their husbands' expectations; but as I've written here (humorously) VBM was awesome for me and my patriarchy because we all voted together and I know exactly how all four of us (3 women) voted! I now have 6 voters whose ballots come to my house. Big win for the patriarchy! No knowing glances under the stern gaze of the Pater Familias. But we did have cookies and cocoa.
Oh well, water, bridges, milk, spills, eggs, baskets etc.
Basically, a lot (millions?) of people will vote for Harris thinking she's unqualified. Maybe that will be enough.
But I'm not sure that the appeal to historical inevitability is particularly helpful ... we were already treated to the impossibility an early debate exposing Biden; then of replacing Biden, a sitting president; then of Biden the winner of the primaries; then we replaced Biden.
Every bit of this final three months has been a series of we can't do X because it will tear the party apart; then doing X.
I think it's silly to positively vote for Trump.
I don't think it's silly to think Harris isn't qualified.
Some people will vote for Harris thinking she's not qualified.
Some people will simply not vote for Harris thinking she's not qualified.
Not voting for Harris could mean voting for Trump; OR it could mean staying home or maybe voting third party.
I think there are a lot of people voting for Harris who don't think she's qualified...I don't know how many, and I don't know if they live in the right states. Maybe enough, though.
At this point I'm just plain old curious about how the election unfolds.
There's rather more evidence that we'll get more Berlusconi than Mussolini. But I suppose campaigning against Trump as a corrupt Berlusconi comp would've taken too much 'splaining to pull off.
"I have no doubt Kamala Harris is qualified to the do the job"
Honestly, if she loses, I'd point to this being an issue; more people than the rabid partisan fringes hold this in doubt.
I'm not doubting that you've arrived at that conclusion reasonably; I'm just not sure it's as generalizable as one might think... I think she's done rather a poor job of closing the deal on being qualified.
She's running on comparative merit and negative partisanship -- and that might just be enough.
I think it's addressed; at the simplest level if Ukraine is offering a 1 and Russia is offering a 9, then it isn't that neither side would take any deal, its that the deals on offer are too far apart.
Of course, publicly both sides will take maximal positions; we don't have a good idea of where their 'real' positions are... or what additional considerations would be required to accept a territorial number less than a 'preferred' territorial number.
Not only that, but there are considerations that China/US might trade that could impact Russia/Ukraine.
The US can afford to let Ukraine/Russia grind it out; I just don't think Ukraine can.
I'd guess that the primary reason is there's no guaranty that LRM will be used for interdiction and there's a reasonable assumption that Ukraine will use them to broaden the theatre and an understandable recognition that retaliation against (Russian) cities would be 'justified'.
It depends on what Team Biden (State, Intel, Def) think it would do to the conflict and whatever non-public negotiations they are having w/Russia and it's patron.
On the specifics of this or that weapon, I agree that increasing capabilities to make the invasion more and more costly is useful; upto the point of triggering a regional war or an asymmetrical escalation by Russia.
Not privy to any further non-public information than the rest of us have, I can't say what exactly that line should be on any given weapons system... but my sense is that Team Biden is acting under those constraints -- and they aren't unreasonable constraints.
I don't think it's useful to talk about the war in Ukraine in terms of Team Red and Team Blue... I get why people do it during an election cycle, but I'm not seeing good commentary or assessments when done that way.
If we drop 'scoring points' for one team or another, we're left with the primary definition of success. What is success in Ukraine?
Ukrainian Maximal Success
1. Expulsion of *Russians* and Russian Forces from Ukraine, esp. Donbas region (i.e. de-Russification)
2. Expulsion of Russian forces from Ukraine including Crimea
3. Expulsion of Russian forces from Donbas
4. Expulsion of Russian forces from post-2014 borders - status quo ante.
5. Recognition of post-2014 borders
6. Expansion into Luhansk and all SE Ukraine
7. Expansion into Odessa and 'landbridge' to Moldova
8. Domination of a 'rump' Ukrainian polity based in Kiev or maybe Lviv.
9. Annexation of Ukraine.
Russian Maximal Success
In terms of diplomacy, Biden has played a pretty good hand supporting Ukraine... Ukraine has successfully defended against annexation, has held off Russian advances west towards Kiev, but lost territory SE along the coast up to and around Kherson. While inflicting significant casualties to Russians and exposing Russian readiness for operations; and thereby making Russia's invasion costly and unsuccessful of primary objectives. That's a win.
But whither hence?
I think some of the jejune predictions I saw here and various other parts of the internet of smashing Ukrainian offensives leading to Putin's fall and the implosion of post-Soviet Russia (talk about Maximal...) have been tempered for all but the most die-hard Neo-Cons and Lib-Ints.
It would be foolish to cut-off aid to Ukraine; it would be foolish to expand the war; and it is foolish to encourage Ukraine to go on the offensive. It was ok to test Ukrainian offensive options last year in a somewhat optimistic hope that something might 'break'. But that hypothesis has been tested and Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to punch and counterpunch; at best it can maintain an opportunistic reserve to exploit a mistake. And/or maybe the occasional raid. (On the raid... raids can be good; they are best when they know that they are raids and not misinterpreted as strategic manoeuvres).
It is smart to continue to make any Russian movement costly... to keep increasing the costs and even to spread the costs to Russian infrastructure where reasonable.
But realistically, this means we're in a stalemate that Ukraine is going to lose slowly. We can fund that loss so that it is costly for the Russians... and we should do that as long as the Russians won't negotiate. And, war is risky and unpredictable... so maybe something will break Ukraine's way. But the asymmetrical interest in Ukraine means that Russia will outlast everyone but Ukraine. And Ukraine is losing.
The best thing the US can do is emphasize the Ukrainian success in repelling the Russian invasion; pledge continued support, pledge compensation to Ukraine for rebuilding and to offset the inevitable loss of territory, and work with China to negotiate a settlement. Time is not on Ukraine's side. On the chart above; realistically it means a settlement range between 4-6 with 5 being best case and 5.5 most likely (some southern buffer between Kherson and Crimea... ideally including Melitopol east as far as possible, possibly at the expense of land in Luhansk)
Russia claims victory and gets some territorial expansion and official recognition of a 2014+ borders.
Ukraine claims victory for punching the Russian bear and standing its ground; and gets portions of land it no longer controls returned; new international borders; engages is some 'light ethnic and cultural cleansing' in eastern Ukraine - no Russian schools/language/churches; recognizes the Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church and severs ties with Russian Orthodoxy; builds regional (non-NATO) alliance w/Poland and Baltics that enables western arms sharing and integration. And retools for whatever Russia may plan in the next 10-yrs, and watches like the rest of us what happens when Putin expires.
If we must, this is closer to the Democratic position under Biden -- despite the over-the-top rhetoric of total Ukrainian victory -- than it is to Trump -- despite the over-the-top rhetoric of magically ending the war. The 'problem' is that it is most in our and Ukraine's interest to end the war with some territorial concessions than it is to continue it indefinitely as Russia grinds Ukraine into dust... which means the current rhetoric for both Team Red and Team Blue is wrong for reasons that are easily understood as long as you aren't blindly supporting Team Red or Team Blue at Ukraine's expense.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/11/2024”
Eh, some depts. you might be able to 'shake-up' a bit with some fresh ideas and energy. I seriously doubt DoD is one of them (that's polite for impossible). Even the ones that might be subject to 'revitalization' are not going to vitalize all that much in a 1-4 yr horizon. Civil Service reform is a generational project.
Plus, it depends on what the actual 'strategery' here is... I haven't seen anything about the grand plan for DoD yet -- just the pick. Is there a grand strategy?
"
On the one hand, obviously.
On the other hand, if Trump seriously is going after Dept Ed (for example)... I wouldn't discount the 'comedic effect' of having Musk/Vivek with inside access to Ed meetings/comms etc. and having the teams to expose (selectively, of course) the reasons the GenPub would want to see Ed dispersed.
Like most things, it comes down to execution; and based on the last go-round, I'm not particularly impressed by Trump's ability to execute... but this time is new.
"
Never heard of the Hegseth guy.
The first part of his 'Wikipedia CV' reminds you of that really interesting Special Teams Coach that might just make a good head coach some day. Some team might take a gamble on him and win/lose bigly.
The second part of his 'Wikipedia CV' reminds you of the Special Teams Coach who was too good looking to waste his time learning what it would take to become a good head coach some day, so he went into broadcasting.
DoD is tough; not sure I'd gamble on a pick like this... he was rumored for Veterans Affairs last time -- that seems about right.
"
Yeah, I don't recall Nixon, Ford, or Carter ever saying anything... seemed mostly the big Federalists/Anti-Federalists, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, T.Roosevelt and FDR... not sure if Eisenhower said anything ... oh, and probably Kennedy but that was last one.
Of course, this is from a 45 yr memory, so I'm likely leaving out some McKinley bon mots and what not.
But I don't think there was any particular expectation that the latest one should be featured or say anything... would've been kinda weird, given that the new guys were still alive to say actual things.
"
Back in the 70s the HoP was lowkey kind of a big deal -- it's one of my better memories of the various Disney trips -- partly because it was air conditioned and gave you a 30 minute break -- but it always kinda tied the Disney experience back to America past and present... it was very on-brand: Fort Wilderness, Frontierland, to Tomorrowland and Progress. Disney's future was always an American future.
On “What If Kamala Wins?”
Things 'as they are' are inconsistent across 50 states.
Nothing matters for *this* election... I have no predictions or dire forecasts.
My position is longstanding and pre-dates 2020... I think the US ought to invest in a re-assessment of voting procedures to update some with modern conveniences while moderating others that are out of whack with design requirements (i.e. Neutral and Safe) and to help some states get out from under accretions of idiosyncratic voting regulations that can only be undone under a larger (bipartisan) umbrella.
It's a project, not a response to any one particular thing.
"
That isn't how you build systems, though. If your failure mode is right there in the design, but it only fails catastrophically when it fails catastrophically, it still fails in exactly the way you designed it (and maybe in a couple ways you didn't design).
As I mention in the first post... high trust/high collaboration is an assumption we should not take as baseline.
"
Sure... no reason not to. I'd want to see better process controls over the rolls and who's voted so far -- not to mention a good system for pre-counting (or not pre-counting?) that has 0% chance of leaking prior to election day?
I've seen a suggestion that the following day should be 'National Counting Day' and I have a notion that it's good in theory, but could see issues with leaky counts and an overwhelming need to predict the winner on exit polls alone... but hey, throw it in the mix.
"
"Justify requiring those states to maintain a second poorer-performing parallel precinct system"
Fair enough... it solves for only one vector of a problem - how to make voting ubiquitous, easy and provide a secure audit trail.
It doesn't solve for how do you provide a neutral and protected space to cast a vote.
You could, perhaps, double down on ubiquitous by removing some of the easy by requiring uploading some version of testing software that interacts with phones/cameras to prove that the Ballot is cast without interference. For example.
Again, I refer back to the DNC sponsored commercial... what if the worm turned and the DNC sponsered a commercial showing how women (or Men, pace InMD) are forced to fill out their mail-in ballot under the oppressive eye of their spouse. [or employer, or union, or precinct warden, or...]
"
I'm sure you're right... but honestly, I think your state is going too far in the other direction.
"Some of the latter group actually discourage, at least indirectly, in-person voting. My state is one of those, with warnings that in-person election-day voting may require a lengthy drive and long wait."
But that's part of the point of the project... elections across 50 states require adequate funding and tooling and training plus some flexibility unique to various contingencies -- but within certain parameters.
In the best possible scenario it's a national unity project which will get buy-in from the vast majority -- even as it gores various oxen from place to place.
Strikes me more as something that might happen after Trump passes from the stage, but perhaps not before the left also has occasion to become election deniers anew.
"
Heh, this is the meanest thing you've ever written.
"reasonable Republicans like the Cheneys, the Kristols, and the Frums"
"
Oh, right, I sometimes forget the perqs of being the odd Catholic Distributist Crank that no one gets or takes seriously. Some of you have reputations to uphold.
"
Yeah, this isn't a BSDI post... I think it's good policy for the US to update what's clearly a voting system that is eroding legitimacy owing to 50 different polities using different methods and processes and timelines to determine Federal elections.
Much of that is a Constitutional artifact; but Congress has limited authority to mandate certain standards; but more importantly, taking what seems to work... let's say VBM in some Western States and Electric counting in FL and providing additional (bi-partisan) funding/standards is the goal here.
It really would be more of a Political Capital project than a one-party 'fixes' the systems sort of thing.
Regarding husbands... unpossible.
"
This is veering off topic a bit... but I have an emerging concern that the Polling/Vibes situation is going to cause grief if Harris wins.
Right now the Polling says it's a toss-up; but the 'vibes' are all... [whispers] probably Trump.
If Trump wins, then people go... yeah, I was afraid of that, but whatch'a gonna do?
If Harris wins with Trump vibing? Ugh, worst case scenario.
I don't think there will be a 'coup' ... just all sorts of lawfare and a further erosion of legitimacy. The point isn't that this particular election will be fraudulent, its that we need election processes to be bullet proof from a perception point of view. Having 50 different election processes worked when the 50 states had higher internal trust (very high trust in Chicago, I might add) but like a lot of things that worked one way with lower tech, and a different way with mid-tech, we're falling behind with high-tech. We should invest in the voting process.
I low-key thought Biden should have spent capital on Voting Process Legitimacy efforts -- which would've likely required a concession on Voter ID in exchange for unified agreement on Mail-in voting/counting/processes with restrictions on who can VBM, bans on States discussing early voting demographics, a National holiday for election day, etc. etc. All designed to shore up the *legitimacy* of the process, not the usual slap fights over turn-out suppression real or imagined.
I'm glad that congress spend *some* capital on reforming the Electoral Count Act, so that's something... but now I wish we'd spent more on Congress establishing baseline requirements -- which I believe they can do constitutionally -- for the States to follow.
Finally, I know folks here are very pro-VBM... I'm not against it, entirely, I just have qualms that it works well as trust erodes. Like, it's a high-trust/high-collaboration method of voting. And we're not high-trust/high-collaboration anymore.
To whit, I find it amusing that the DNC is running ads showing Women exchanging knowing glances *at a polling place* and voting for Harris to 'betray' their husbands' expectations; but as I've written here (humorously) VBM was awesome for me and my patriarchy because we all voted together and I know exactly how all four of us (3 women) voted! I now have 6 voters whose ballots come to my house. Big win for the patriarchy! No knowing glances under the stern gaze of the Pater Familias. But we did have cookies and cocoa.
Oh well, water, bridges, milk, spills, eggs, baskets etc.
On “The Way Through is Donald Trump for President”
Or Greenland... try to lower the asking price.
On “How Times Have Changed”
Bears fan here. Ugh.
Then I saw the social media clip of Stevenson and what seemed like merely poor execution and bad luck got even worse.
On “What If Trump Wins?”
I've already covered this in my response.
Basically, a lot (millions?) of people will vote for Harris thinking she's unqualified. Maybe that will be enough.
But I'm not sure that the appeal to historical inevitability is particularly helpful ... we were already treated to the impossibility an early debate exposing Biden; then of replacing Biden, a sitting president; then of Biden the winner of the primaries; then we replaced Biden.
Every bit of this final three months has been a series of we can't do X because it will tear the party apart; then doing X.
"
Heh, dozens of us are perplexed.
"
I think it's silly to positively vote for Trump.
I don't think it's silly to think Harris isn't qualified.
Some people will vote for Harris thinking she's not qualified.
Some people will simply not vote for Harris thinking she's not qualified.
Not voting for Harris could mean voting for Trump; OR it could mean staying home or maybe voting third party.
I think there are a lot of people voting for Harris who don't think she's qualified...I don't know how many, and I don't know if they live in the right states. Maybe enough, though.
At this point I'm just plain old curious about how the election unfolds.
"
There's rather more evidence that we'll get more Berlusconi than Mussolini. But I suppose campaigning against Trump as a corrupt Berlusconi comp would've taken too much 'splaining to pull off.
"
"I have no doubt Kamala Harris is qualified to the do the job"
Honestly, if she loses, I'd point to this being an issue; more people than the rabid partisan fringes hold this in doubt.
I'm not doubting that you've arrived at that conclusion reasonably; I'm just not sure it's as generalizable as one might think... I think she's done rather a poor job of closing the deal on being qualified.
She's running on comparative merit and negative partisanship -- and that might just be enough.
"
In the end, the wolf eats the boy's sheep.
On “Ukraine and the Axis of Evil”
I think it's addressed; at the simplest level if Ukraine is offering a 1 and Russia is offering a 9, then it isn't that neither side would take any deal, its that the deals on offer are too far apart.
Of course, publicly both sides will take maximal positions; we don't have a good idea of where their 'real' positions are... or what additional considerations would be required to accept a territorial number less than a 'preferred' territorial number.
Not only that, but there are considerations that China/US might trade that could impact Russia/Ukraine.
The US can afford to let Ukraine/Russia grind it out; I just don't think Ukraine can.
"
I'd guess that the primary reason is there's no guaranty that LRM will be used for interdiction and there's a reasonable assumption that Ukraine will use them to broaden the theatre and an understandable recognition that retaliation against (Russian) cities would be 'justified'.
It depends on what Team Biden (State, Intel, Def) think it would do to the conflict and whatever non-public negotiations they are having w/Russia and it's patron.
On the specifics of this or that weapon, I agree that increasing capabilities to make the invasion more and more costly is useful; upto the point of triggering a regional war or an asymmetrical escalation by Russia.
Not privy to any further non-public information than the rest of us have, I can't say what exactly that line should be on any given weapons system... but my sense is that Team Biden is acting under those constraints -- and they aren't unreasonable constraints.
"
I don't think it's useful to talk about the war in Ukraine in terms of Team Red and Team Blue... I get why people do it during an election cycle, but I'm not seeing good commentary or assessments when done that way.
If we drop 'scoring points' for one team or another, we're left with the primary definition of success. What is success in Ukraine?
Ukrainian Maximal Success
1. Expulsion of *Russians* and Russian Forces from Ukraine, esp. Donbas region (i.e. de-Russification)
2. Expulsion of Russian forces from Ukraine including Crimea
3. Expulsion of Russian forces from Donbas
4. Expulsion of Russian forces from post-2014 borders - status quo ante.
5. Recognition of post-2014 borders
6. Expansion into Luhansk and all SE Ukraine
7. Expansion into Odessa and 'landbridge' to Moldova
8. Domination of a 'rump' Ukrainian polity based in Kiev or maybe Lviv.
9. Annexation of Ukraine.
Russian Maximal Success
In terms of diplomacy, Biden has played a pretty good hand supporting Ukraine... Ukraine has successfully defended against annexation, has held off Russian advances west towards Kiev, but lost territory SE along the coast up to and around Kherson. While inflicting significant casualties to Russians and exposing Russian readiness for operations; and thereby making Russia's invasion costly and unsuccessful of primary objectives. That's a win.
But whither hence?
I think some of the jejune predictions I saw here and various other parts of the internet of smashing Ukrainian offensives leading to Putin's fall and the implosion of post-Soviet Russia (talk about Maximal...) have been tempered for all but the most die-hard Neo-Cons and Lib-Ints.
It would be foolish to cut-off aid to Ukraine; it would be foolish to expand the war; and it is foolish to encourage Ukraine to go on the offensive. It was ok to test Ukrainian offensive options last year in a somewhat optimistic hope that something might 'break'. But that hypothesis has been tested and Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to punch and counterpunch; at best it can maintain an opportunistic reserve to exploit a mistake. And/or maybe the occasional raid. (On the raid... raids can be good; they are best when they know that they are raids and not misinterpreted as strategic manoeuvres).
It is smart to continue to make any Russian movement costly... to keep increasing the costs and even to spread the costs to Russian infrastructure where reasonable.
But realistically, this means we're in a stalemate that Ukraine is going to lose slowly. We can fund that loss so that it is costly for the Russians... and we should do that as long as the Russians won't negotiate. And, war is risky and unpredictable... so maybe something will break Ukraine's way. But the asymmetrical interest in Ukraine means that Russia will outlast everyone but Ukraine. And Ukraine is losing.
The best thing the US can do is emphasize the Ukrainian success in repelling the Russian invasion; pledge continued support, pledge compensation to Ukraine for rebuilding and to offset the inevitable loss of territory, and work with China to negotiate a settlement. Time is not on Ukraine's side. On the chart above; realistically it means a settlement range between 4-6 with 5 being best case and 5.5 most likely (some southern buffer between Kherson and Crimea... ideally including Melitopol east as far as possible, possibly at the expense of land in Luhansk)
Russia claims victory and gets some territorial expansion and official recognition of a 2014+ borders.
Ukraine claims victory for punching the Russian bear and standing its ground; and gets portions of land it no longer controls returned; new international borders; engages is some 'light ethnic and cultural cleansing' in eastern Ukraine - no Russian schools/language/churches; recognizes the Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church and severs ties with Russian Orthodoxy; builds regional (non-NATO) alliance w/Poland and Baltics that enables western arms sharing and integration. And retools for whatever Russia may plan in the next 10-yrs, and watches like the rest of us what happens when Putin expires.
If we must, this is closer to the Democratic position under Biden -- despite the over-the-top rhetoric of total Ukrainian victory -- than it is to Trump -- despite the over-the-top rhetoric of magically ending the war. The 'problem' is that it is most in our and Ukraine's interest to end the war with some territorial concessions than it is to continue it indefinitely as Russia grinds Ukraine into dust... which means the current rhetoric for both Team Red and Team Blue is wrong for reasons that are easily understood as long as you aren't blindly supporting Team Red or Team Blue at Ukraine's expense.