The article says “fully restored” which is dramatically different than “win”. Of course Ukraine will be different after the war. I suspect you may be deliberately mischaracterizing the article to lobby against intervention.
The article title says win, but the subtitle text says fully restore.
So it is the article itself that is misrepresenting the facts not the poster.
Okay, I feel like anyone that thought that they had a chance of winning was drinking the Kool aid anyway, it’s obvious they can’t win, not even a war of attrition.
I’m someone who loves history, and global politics, and although not literally recognized as an expert or anything, it’s super obvious that without the constant flow of aid Ukraine would’ve fallen in less than 8 months.
What we have now is a proxy war where the EU and US are propping up a losing nation, but soon they will either surrender or be conquered unless the US or Europe directly intervene.
He is fully aware Ukraine can’t win. His advisors tell him, including general Milley.
Agree that they know, they always knew especially they had a significant hand in engineering that war, but i particularly wouldn’t trust Milley about strategy and predictions, he was completely surprised by Russian intervention, he panicked and it was him who said that Russians will capture Kiev in 3 days (not Russia as libs are coping now).
But gotta keep the charade going until the election is over.
Within the context of this single aid package, of course Ukraine is not going to be winning anything, other than perhaps the objective of stabilizing their frontline situation. Hopefully this is a return to form after too many months of deliberate stalling by Putin’s wing of the GOP.
Americans will be like “we hate war, spend money on your own people” during times of peace but then scream “WHY ARENT WE SPENDING MORE ON WAR!?!?!” the instant one actually starts.
