this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
10 points (66.7% liked)
World News
32507 readers
1423 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pretending Ukraine was winning was necessary to send them more weapons. They would never get funding for a war of attrition which ends in their loss.
Now the obvious conclusion is unfolding and our media slowly changes tone as if they are surprised Ukraine cannot win.
Though the weapons have been sent with the premise that Ukraine has been losing
No, it was always "Ukraine is winning but might lose if we don't help" because obviously if they just said "Ukraine is winning" then the help would be not needed.
It was "Ukraine is on the verge of losing each second but a few weapons can keep their head above water until a peace is negotiated"
No it wasn't, nobody official in Ukraine or west even talked about negotiating peace, the terms was always basically unconditional surrender of Russia and conquest of Crimea.
Wow haven't seen claims Russia would surrender, sounds like a far cry
I mean they didn't officially called Russia to surrender, but after the first talks were sabotaged by Johnson, official stance of Ukraine, supported by their western helpers was (and still is) that Russia should entirely left borders of Ukraine including Donbas and also give them Crimea. The only situation in which this could happen is Russia's surrender (and historically such maximum one sided demands also only happened after surrendering of one side).