• geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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.

        • tiredturtle@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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”

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                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).