Los militares ucranios en el frente de Kurájove aseguran que el número de tropas se ha reducido drásticamente, un contratiempo peor que la necesidad de más armamento
Because it's a war of attrition and it took a long time for the AFU to reach the point of collapse. Russia didn't do big arrow offensives because those would've been very costly in terms of equipment and manpower as Ukraine found out during its fabled offensive. Instead, Russia chose to use its massive artillery advantage to grind out the AFU instead, and now we're seeing the results of that approach. Here's an analysis from an actual expert if you're interested
Given that Russia and Ukraine almost came to an agreement two months into the war and the west sabotaged it, I think there's little question about that.
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.
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.
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).
Why only now, what's the benefit of keeping it on before
Because it's a war of attrition and it took a long time for the AFU to reach the point of collapse. Russia didn't do big arrow offensives because those would've been very costly in terms of equipment and manpower as Ukraine found out during its fabled offensive. Instead, Russia chose to use its massive artillery advantage to grind out the AFU instead, and now we're seeing the results of that approach. Here's an analysis from an actual expert if you're interested
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine
We gotta wonder whose benefit it is to keep on prolonging while the official story is different
Given that Russia and Ukraine almost came to an agreement two months into the war and the west sabotaged it, I think there's little question about that.
It's definitely fishy with sabotaging all around from different directions with all of the negotiation attemps
Sabotaging did not come from different directions, it was always coming from 38.8977° N, 77.0365° W, though might be through other places.
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).