“I see you, I hear you, you’re valid, now I’m going to passive aggressively suggest your substantive answer is just circlejerking”

What does NATO have to do with a rule/law that Ukraine comes up

If you don’t understand that vassal countries do whatever their masters tell them to do then I strongly recommend reading the european report on the vassalisation of europe. https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-art-of-vassalisation-how-russias-war-on-ukraine-has-transformed-transatlantic-relations/

This isn’t specifically about Ukraine, it’s about how the war in Ukraine has vassalised the EU countries, and how things like Brexit led to pressures that forced the EU into obeying America, but it’s a useful primer for you to learn about how other countries become subservient to american interests. Particularly because it’s a report funded and produced by the EU and other nations.

Since it needs to be spelled out for you (come on, really?), here it is:

To me, OP is firstly highlighting how utterly useless and, quite frankly, depressingly comical it is that ukraine is pushing to do away with capitalizing certain words during war-time. Secondly, OP is highlighting how fucked Ukraine is to many of their own people, like the ethnic Russians who speak Russian.

This, tied in with the background context that Ukraine’s counteroffensive has utterly failed, and that this war is unwinnable for them at this point, highlights how much they look like clowns by doing this sort of thing.

OP is then saying its now easy to see how America could lose so many wars when it fights with clowns.

But that connection rests upon the following premise: ukraine is being used as a proxy–by the US–to fight the Russians. (Hence, their response to you was ‘America sponsors the war’).

Your confusion (which is just willful ignorance) stems from you not realizing how much influence the US has over Ukraine and over this war.

But that is widely accepted fact here. Really, to anyone who has been paying attention and isnt blinded by american and western propaganda.

The situation is somewhat analogous to you stumbling upon a proof, and then disagreeing with the conclusion because you disagree with one of the arguments starting premises.

To further the analogy: what you need to do is to take a basic logic course. The premises we’re using here shouldnt be controversial ( but of course, they are within the imperial core)