That's very clearly not what the article says. Its key themes are that the world is "fragmented" and "ambivalent", and that Western sanctions haven't helped as much as hoped. At no point does it paint a picture of a world that is plainly "with Russia". In fact the article's most telling chart (the one that aligns abstaining UN votes with population) speaks directly against this assertion you're making.
Your establishment has gone from "Ukraine will get to Moscow in 3 months"
This is simply nonsense; absolutely no one has said anything about Ukraine getting to Moscow.
to "Ukraine doesn't need its territory to win"
That's the view of that one opinion piece. It's definitely not the consensus view of the political leadership in countries supporting Ukraine.
You people are delusional and speak delirious.
You are clearly misinformed about a lot of things -- and even when an NYT article is right in front of you, you can't seem to read its main points correctly.
Whether that means you are delusional or speak delirious -- is up to you, man.
That's what it says, like how Bloomberg does. Except, NYT cannot tell it as Bloomberg tells it so it must make it so that the establishment that it backs has still some chance. It has not. 80% of the world increased its business with Russia, including even Europe, despite all those sanctions.
> You are clearly misinformed about a lot of things -- and even when an NYT article is right in front of you, you can't seem to read its main points correctly.
Say the people who have been roped into believing all kinds of sh*t ranging from nonexistent WMDs to 'ghost of kiev'. When called out, NYT just admitted that yes, it was a lie, but it was 'good for morale so it was ok'.
You people who subscribe to the Angloamerican Western media have no business talking about being misinformed.