Looks like it’s being used in broader areas far from the frontline though
Well it appears for now they're training on them.
free stuff is bad, when you take too much free stuff, you lose dignity and respect then you gradually become a tool to be used by the donor. without NATO boots on the ground, Ukraine will never win this war
Victory and defeat are defined politically. So what it means for Ukraine to "win" is a question of their leadership. Many have pointed out political survival as an independent country as a victory. While this isn't the stated requirement by their own leadership who often talked about recapturing all Ukrainian territory including Crimea, this certainly could be regarded as a victory. And if that's the victory condition, it's likely Ukraine already won. Especially since even the maximalist Russian demands at this time wouldn't change that.
its just my opinion and i am open to learning.
Yes, Ukraine makes all this equipment you listed and more but where did they get the money from? Ukraine is broke and very corrupt, Andriy Yermak, Zelenskys former chief of staff and right hand man was arrested for money laundering, that says it all.
i will bet my last that most of these production lines you mention are being manned by westerners, if not Ukrainians will steal all of the money and nothing will be done.
What an absurd claim. While Ukraine certainly cooperates with western firms, and some of Ukraine's own defense firms are operating in western countries, the idea that production lines within Ukraine are manned by westerners is ridiculous. Ukraine was an industrial republic under the USSR, and while it's lost capacity since then, there's no reason to think they can't continue industrial output to some degree. What exactly that degree is, is up for discussion. But the biggest factor wouldn't be the manning of the factories, it would be the ability of these factories to operate under continued Russian strikes.
Russia pretends that it doesn't see that the extend of western support to Ukraine is enormous,
The opposite is true. Russia has been very vocal about their displeasure with the extent of western support, and with good reason.
but if you follow Russian media, you will see that Putin is coming under some serious pressure to act directly against western supporters and thats really bad.
I don't believe this is true. Russian media is tricky, and the larger outlets are not publishing things the state doesn't want them to publish. The state itself isn't completely unified, so there's room argue that this is a case of the towers of the Kremlin arguing among themselves, but it's certainly not a reliable indicator. These publications could be Russia wanting the west to think that this is the case, and convince them to reduce support somewhat, or not increase it further. We just don't know.
To summarise.
"The west" should do nothing.
Well a position one
could take might be - "let's sell Ukraine to Russia for the best price we can get". It's an ugly position, but European countries have done ugly things before. Some recent elections in a few countries indicate that this position might be getting more common.
Oh yes. That is the story the Russians tell us for 5 years now.
Is it the story Russia has been consistently telling us for 5 years now? I don't think Russia has had a consistent narrative about the direction of the war, and for the past couple of years the narrative of ending the war has become increasingly nebulous with victory occasionally claimed to be "close" but with no particulars.
UKR can stop fighting and be another vassal state of RU any time it wants. They choose otherwise.
Again the deal on the table since Istanbul '22 has not required Ukraine to become a vassal state.
First of all, it is not up to me or you to decide who deserves what and decisions of any sovereign state. You answered your own statement. It is not up to you what Ukraine determines it needs to do to defend it's national sovereignty. If Ukraine feels that allowing Russia to profit in any way that allows it to prolong it's imperalist ambitions to the detriment of Ukraines very survival then they are absolutley in their right to hold an intervention.
If Ukraine feels that civilians on a beach in Italy are a threat to their sovereignty, do they get to murder them too? The argument is absurd. Countries generally aren't allowed to attack the infrastructure of other countries' they're not at war with. It's an illegal act of aggression. Ukraine has no more right to attack North Stream then Russia has to attack an LNG terminal in Europe, under the same logic.
Do you have a problem understanding English? Blinken wasn't "openly planning [a] Urainian offensive". He spoke in general terms of a Ukrainian counter-offensive which had already happened, & the long term aim of a just peace.
I see that when you're obviously wrong, such as your false claims about foreigners working in arms factories in Ukraine, or Ukraine not making weapons, you continue to claim you're right, while changing tack.
Unfortunately political leaders have used terms like "counter-offensive" even when they're not really appropriate, so what they talk about vs what's actually happening on the ground can be quite different. Ukraine's '23 summer offensive was often called a counter-offensive though in reality that front line (from the Dnepr to Ugledar area) had been static for about a year prior.
