A lot of writing in that article is bad, but this takes the propaganda cake:

Russia also has the advantage of time. While Putin can lead Russia along a single strategic trajectory regardless of the length of the war, the U.S. is subject to the whims of democracy. The White House and seats in Congress change hands. Policies change as voters grow weary of supporting other countries.

It’s like an onion. There’s so many levels to these 3 sentences, that if I start peeling them apart, I’ll burst into tears.

Two years ago, the Ukrainian Armed Forces defied expectations immediately. Days before Russia’s massive combined arms incursion, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley spoke for the U.S. military when he predicted to Congress that Kyiv would fall within 72 hours.

Many military analysts similarly predicted the Russian Armed Forces would quickly rout the overmatched Ukrainians. American leaders encouraged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to leave the country, lest Russian troops assassinate him.

This whole narrative has to have been pure bullshit, right? The West had been arming Ukraine since 2014, Merkel even admitted the Minsk II agreements were just stalling for that purpose, and if you sell Ukraine as this hopelessly outmatched smol bean that’s certainly doomed, it’s easier to rally public support when it “somehow” beats all odds to hang in the fight. It’s classic setting expectations at zero so anything looks like success, and fits with how often the media has ran with the “full scale” descriptor of the Russian invasion.

remember back when this first started how confident libs were

that fucking ukraine could win a war of attrition against Russia, while using nazis? Russia won the moment they actually committed to the war.

“While Putin can lead Russia along a single strategic trajectory regardless of the length of the war, the U.S. is subject to the whims of democracy.”

My three biggest flaws:

1.) I work too hard.

2.) I care too much.

3.) I would’ve kicked your ass if my bros didn’t pull me away.

Analysis of the article that is seemingly biased towards Pax Americana:

• The Kyiv government have inferior military resource in both quality and quantity. This implies that the claim by Pax Americana news outlet that Russians used outdated weapons that is so inaccurate that it targets civilians by mistake was a mere projection of attacks on civilians by Kyiv and Azov thugs.
• The Kyiv government depends completely on USA government for support against the humanitarian intervention from Russia. This implies that Euromaiden Kyiv government lack democratic support which implied that the 2019 Ukraine election was rigged or unrepresentative of the whole Ukraine population.
• Putin engaged in attrition which gave advantage to Russians since it cause the slow loss of military supplies, morality of troops, and external support of Euromaiden Kyiv while Russia have sufficient supplies and support for the humanitarian intervention. This implied that the claim by Pax Americana that Putin is losing military resources, morality of soldiers, and support was a lie. It also contradicts the previous Pax Americana claim that Putin was wasting too much national resource in the war or that Putin was aggressively expanding Russian “occupation” of Ukraine. This also has the implication that Putin honestly follows his claim to only engage in humanitarian intervention for protection of rebelling states.
• The article did not mention the justification that Putin have for the military intervention nor the context which implies genuine Pax Americana biases.

Maybe it’s just because I’m a determinist, but they could never have won. This was the only possible outcome because it’s what the conditions amounted to.

Was the goal ever to win? I assumed the goal always was to have another permanent stalemate backed up by endless US arms sales; basically a second Israel.