Well, Mr. Jamie Dettmer of Politico, it's time for you to suck some Scholz dick. Imagine the options of Western centers of power if they setting up Scholz as the peacemaker. Really scraping the bottom of that barrel.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-kyiv-un-security-council-washington-nato/

Anyway.
This article above is one more voice they started to let peep the tune that things aren't going as media (like Politico) told to us. But it also seems to be one that starts to contemplate what they'll present to the readers as victory.
> When the dust settles, will the West’s media coverage get a passing grade, or will we find, at times, we allowed our sympathy for the Ukrainian cause to overlook matters we shouldn’t? 
Mr. Jamie Dettmer, you have no sympathy for Ukraine. You write whatever you are paid to write and that is to make the readers feel sympathy for Ukraine just enough to not question whatever bs the legislations and governments pass through related to this war.

Tho this article also starts out with telling us, they are right about everything they wrote check out this paragraph:
> The information trap we’re caught in isn’t one that overplays the true menace of [...] Putin — his thuggish, antediluvian nastiness; the bestial nature of his army’s atrocious behavior; his unlawful and detestable deportations (many of them children) from occupied parts of Ukraine to Russia — all echoing some of the worst episodes of a dark and hideous European past. Nor does it downplay the threat to democracies posed by his axis of autocrats and their antagonism toward classic liberal values.
Nooo, not the children! Think of them.
Literal Holocaust Holodomor. dark and hideous European past
Also Orbán.The "axis of autocrats".

Anyway #2, quotes.
> skepticism needed when considering whether this war is winnable — as in, can Russian forces be ejected from the 20 percent of Ukraine they’ve seized? Are we properly questioning some of the key assumptions underpinning the West’s strategy? Assumptions like Ukraine being the first stage of a broader Russian master plan to launch a land attack on NATO; that the fates of Ukraine and Europe are absolutely synonymous; or that Western sanctions will inevitably wreck Russia’s economy.
Here's the replies this article implies to each question:
> Is this war winnable?
No.
> As in, can Russian forces be ejected from the 20 percent of Ukraine they’ve seized?
No.
> Are we properly questioning some of the key assumptions underpinning the West’s strategy?
No.
> Is Ukraine the first stage of a broader Russian master plan to launch a land attack on NATO?
No.
> Is the fates of Ukraine and Europe are absolutely synonymous?
No.
Will Western sanctions inevitably wreck Russia’s economy?
No.

So much to tell and note about this article. Beyond all the above it also wants readers to support lifting restrictions over weapon systems:
> Questions like is this war winnable in the maximal sense? And if it is, can it be won with the current Western approach of foot-dragging when it comes to supplies or maintaining restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles? And if the West isn’t prepared to do much more, what then? Prolonged war?
Translation:
> if you don't support lifting restrictions that will prolong the war
Isn't giving more straws to Ukraine to grab on prolongs the war but not helping Ukraine actually "win" this?
The author criticizes the "game changing weapons", but can't prevent himself suggesting another one. Good job.