You are still arguing rhetorically. Be substantial, and analytical. That is the honest way to argue.
The Russians aren’t defeated YET.
All I’m saying is that the odds are good that the Ukrainians can soon put them in a hopeless position. The map favors that.
The Ukrainian air defense system was never “superior”, it was just good enough to keep the Russian Air Force mostly neutralized. The Ukrainian air defense has been running low on ammo, so western aid is necessary to keep the status quo.
The Russians obviously haven’t got enough cruise missiles to have a decisive strategic effect on Ukraine. They had to give up on the attacks on the electric system and railroads. If they had the missiles, or if the missiles were getting through more often, they would have kept it up.
F16s are necessary to backfill the Ukrainian AF. They are low on planes and there aren’t enough ex-Soviet aircraft around in Europe for that.
Wars use up materiel. It has to come from somewhere.
I am. I am showing the logical inconsistency of the propagana put out by the Washington Post and those advocating the position taken therein. It is not for me to figure out which part are lies and which aren't. At least some of it is a pack of lies. Start from demonstrable facts - real facts, not fact checked facts - and then argue the point. Right now the position is nonsense not worthy of Edward Lear or Lewis Carroll.