So the argument is that Ukraine never stood a chance in this war and the politicians in the west always knew this but they’ve been pushing the narrative that “Ukraine can still win” because it serves their purposes to send Ukrainians to die in the theory that this will weaken Russia.

The concept is known as a “bleeding sore”, going back to the Napoleonic wars when Britain used the same strategy in Spain against Napoleon. It doesn’t matter that Ukraine can’t win because the wests purpose is served by the conflict itself more than the resolution.

Note how the mask often slips and pro-war advocates talk about how “cost effective” this war is for the west because it’s Ukrainians dying and not Americans. The Polish President said this just yesterday. Ghoulish.

The west only drips in weapons, enough to keep Ukraine in the fight but laughably inadequate to win, or even reach the “first line” of Russian defensive works. The purpose of the west is served by keeping the conflict open because it’s Ukrainians and Russians dying.

I can give you a list of (deservedly or not) respected western geopolitical thinkers who were pointing out the only outcome of this war is a lot of dead Ukrainians going back to 2014. The western leaders knew this all along and they cynically decided to push for conflict and the abandonment of the Minsk II peace protocols because they saw an opportunity to get Russia bogged down in an Afghanistan-style strength-sapping conflict.

The shift in the narrative is that instead of simply beating their chests with slava Ukraine war chants, the absolute failure of the counteroffensive makes it obvious that Ukraine can’t win, and once that is acknowledged then it becomes morally untenable to argue Ukrainians should continue dying to try to force the culturally Russian regions to remain part of Ukraine.