This is one of the first mainstream articles that's openly talking about the fact that US is not going to keep supporting Ukraine for "as long as it takes"
U.S. Administration has an obligation to unemotionally view the war as it genuinely is, not as we would wish it to be, and make decisions based on U.S. interests—which are not always identical with Ukraine’s interests.
It further admits that the offensive is a failure and Ukraine is unlikely achieve any significant gains regardless of what the west sends
The hard truth is that a sober analysis of both Ukraine’s three-month summer offensive and an assessment of the war overall leads to the conclusion not simply that the offensive is going “too slow” but that it appears unlikely to succeed. Arguably, it won’t matter how much time Kyiv is given, how many weapons it is provided, and how much ammunition the West delivers: completely evicting Russia from the territory it illegally seized appears to be a militarily unattainable aspiration.
There is finally an admission in the mainstream that prolonging the war simply results in more people dying and Ukraine losing more territory, an obvious fact that libs continue to dismiss and ridicule today
Without a change in policy, Washington’s approach is poised to condemn tens of thousands of additional Ukrainians to unnecessary deaths and reduce more Ukrainian territory to dust.
There's finally an admission that Ukraine has at least 200k dead and wounded. While likely lower than the actual losses, it is a significantly higher number than what western media has been peddling up to this point
More critically, Ukraine has lost a conservatively estimated 200,000 soldiers killed and wounded, including tens of thousands who have had limbs blown off and an unknown – but likely massive – number of troops with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries.
There's also an admission that US inventory has dried up, and replacements will take years to produce
After the first 18 months of this war, the U.S. has contributed over two million artillery shells, thousands of tanks and other armored vehicles, and tens of thousands of anti-air and anti-tank missiles. Whatever slack there was in our inventories has long since evaporated. Though we have started the process of expanding our industrial capacity to produce more arms and weapons, it will be years before we catch up to demand. The fact is, we will have to diminish our own military capacity to provide Ukraine with what it needs, harming our own national security.
Russian arable land in the North is just not very productive. A longer growing season won't offset the lost productivity that climate change will inflict in the South.
You do realize that you don't need to have a relationship with someone the exact same age as you, right?
The article does address your points, for what it's worth. Plus, as established by first party sources, Euromaidan was orchestrated by the US with extensive propaganda support... which to any degree detracts from what would otherwise seem to be legitimate reasons for overthrowing government.
Removed by mod
Russian soil in the North is inferior because it's thin, has few nutrients, and tends to be acidic. Chernozem is Russia's most productive soil and it's predominantly concentrated in the south of the country. In fact, it's the same soil that makes the Canadian Prairies so productive.
Again, do you not understand that people don't need to have relationships where ages match?
What corruption (more than usual for Ukraine) was there in Poroshenko's election? Weren't there literally thousands of international observers for that election? Similarly, for Yanukovych's election, where was the impact of this so-called interference? International observers were once again present and found no evidence of such wrongdoing. If you go back to 2004, the government had mechanisms to protect against explicit corruption (in case you forget, Yanukovych ended up losing that election in the re-run). Which of these governments are you calling illegitimate because of Russian electoral interference?
Removed by mod
Ah yes, because crop rotation in the shit show that is northern soil would go so well. Where's the evidence? Many Canadian soil science experts have written off the promise of boreal land: the soil would take decades if not centuries to rehabilitate.
Meanwhile, you don't seem to understand that even small age gaps create marginal imbalances that need to be filled, which (if filled by small age gaps again) leads to a knock-on effect down the population pyramid.
Every government has corruption. Are you surprised by this? In an example that you will understand, US elections are horrendously corrupt because of rampant gerrymandering and no restrictions on corporate PAC donations. However, people still consider US elections to be "fair" and "just." Ukraine's elections have been no more corrupt than they usually are, which I proved to you and am happy to provide more sources for. To which point you... moved the goalposts with no evidence. At least put some effort into your argument, please.
A lack of evidence is either a lack of intelligence or deliberate bad faith.
Removed by mod
Your source is... the Atlantic Council? The same institution that's well known for being a US intelligence front?
The Atlantic Council consists of a bunch of warhawks keen on foreign interference:
Not to mention literally racist:
Glad to know who I'm talking to, I guess. How's the weather in Fort Briggs this time of year?
Removed by mod