Victory has always been on the table for Ukraine if they hadn’t been held back in using the weapons they were given.

But that’s my whole point. You imply that they shouldn’t have been held back, and I explain why the conditions were given. Whether or not that is good or not depends on the point of view. If you don’t want to be pulled into a war, you don’t give offensive weapons, if you don’t mind being pulled into a war, you do give offensive weapons. The plan could also have been to keep Ukraine in a stalemate so they can create their own industry. We don’t know that.

It’s more nuanced. From what I recall they weren’t giving Ukraine long range missiles and I also remember some conditions regarding Russian territory for shorter range missiles. It makes sense though. Ukraine is defending and US/EU are helping them defend. If they were supplying them weapons to attack it would be different.

Some people believe this wasn’t really in the best interest of Ukraine but on the other hand it would have really not be in the best interest of the US/EU. What people often forget is that the choices were defeat or (alleged) stalemate and not a stalemate or victory.