(It's not Ukrainians who are urging surrender.) Giving Russia a yet-to-be-determined percentage of Ukraine -- yes, "half" was a pessimistic projection for the first tranche, but it doesn't really matter whether we pressure Ukraine into ceding 50% of its territory now and 50% later, or 20% now and 80% later -- would send an unmistakable signal to every third-rate regional power in the world that a nuclear arsenal is the solution to all their worries.

Of course, no one here is suggesting anything like that or, I would guess, even contemplating or imagining same ... except you!

I'm dubious that the parties per se have the leverage to literally impose such a requirement. But I think the actual effect is similar. Campaign funds that can be used without a thin layer of separation between candidate and campaign are transferable, and a member in a non-contested district has to raise money for use in the few contested districts if they want other members to owe them any favors.

There are big differences between categories. If I remember right, they're doing well on aircraft and anti-air missiles, because those were the only major export items they actually produced in the last quarter-century (rather than pulling out of the ground).

Nobody's artillery production is anywhere close to keeping up with current use. But the reasons are different. The US has a policy of stockpiling enough of everything to theoretically be able to win simultaneous total wars against both China and whoever the second-strongest potential enemy is, probably India although people used to assume it was Russia. We were only manufacturing enough artillery shells to keep up with our very limited training use, and we've now increased our production only by the equally tiny amount that would be necessary to gradually replenish our stockpile by the time currently-produced shells get too old to use. But we have the basic industrial capacity to increase a hundredfold, if we wanted to. By contrast, Russia is going all-out, and their use rate had declined below Ukraine's until they got an infusion of shells from North Korea.

Russia has nothing going for it except nuclear blackmail and Western and moral cowardice. (It's not Ukrainians who are urging surrender.) Giving Russia a yet-to-be-determined percentage of Ukraine -- yes, "half" was a pessimistic projection for the first tranche, but it doesn't really matter whether we pressure Ukraine into ceding 50% of its territory now and 50% later, or 20% now and 80% later -- would send an unmistakable signal to every third-rate regional power in the world that a nuclear arsenal is the solution to all their worries.

Russia delenda est.

So even when they do bother to show up, they aren’t doing the job they were elected to do.