It's the usual westerner superiority speaking. When Ukraine wins something it's always due to NATO training, US weapons and all that. When Ukraine starts losing ground it's poor soviet-era training, wrong kind of tactics and decision making on Ukraine.

That is not how I read the parent comment. I read it as US making Ukraine do what US wanted to do.

It's tough to say that Ukraine and US are allies right now. US refuses to hold security assurance, as promised, and forbids Ukraine to restore nuclear arsenal, as before the promise. Bullies behave is such way, not allies.

It is irrelevant to my interpretation of the aforementioned parent comment.

The point is that US made Ukraine do something that the US wanted to do but did not do because were it the US, then it would have had repercussions on US, so they made Ukraine do their dirty work.

Curious use of "made" here when it's something that Ukraine would have very much wanted to do, this cyberattack.

Both benefit'd, then.

According to the down-votes... wait, so they did not both benefit, then?

>Why would that be the case?

It's not speculation that Ukraine is being assisted to a huge degree.

One angle of that assistance: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-...

That very article mentions that on a number of occasions Ukraine has gained intelligence or pulled off their own ops which the US was completely unaware of.

Just because they're being helped doesn't mean that literally everything they do can be appropriated to the US.