I do see how the narrative in the headline could be a call to action, but the article doesn’t propose a solution behind which the audience can rally. At most, the article describes how Americans can interpret the inevitable defeat. Of course, this text doesn’t exist in isolation; other texts would have to do the heavy lifting so that Americans rally behind a war effort.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That was my read as well, and the conclusion is basically an admissions of defeat

Time will tell just how severe the security and economic consequences will be, but one thing is already clear. A small war far away from America’s borders has reshaped our world — and made America’s place in it smaller.

[–] CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sounds like an attempt at a guilt trip with the end goal of, as queermunist above had said, drum up support for the war and direct intervention. Or rather official direct intervention, seeing as NATO mercs, "training specialists" and spies are already on the ground, while drones and satellites provide direct intelligence to AFU.

"Oh if only we had the political will and support to do the needful! Oh woe is us, America's place in the world had dwindled and ebil putler is running rampant in his barbaric conquest! If only you, the reader, had been in lockstep with our plans and cheered for the war! Oh woe!"

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean could be, but seems a lot more roundabout in that regard than previous articles. To me this read more like they're starting to craft a narrative to explain the inevitable loss as the west not having committed enough. This could be used to justify more military spending and austerity going forward where they'll say you don't want another Ukraine do you, then shut up and pay for NATO.

[–] CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Fair enough