Betteridge's law of headlines says: "No".

This entire article is just fifth column "journalism": Defeatism, Ukraine can't win, this war is too expensive for the west, we should invest the money in our societies instead.

It even paints the ongoing ukrainian counter offensive as a failure, even though Ukraine has captured twice the area in 5 days than the Russians did in the last 8 months.

Judging an offensive by it's first days, still deep into a news blackout, only on russian released videos and pictures is just rubbish.

Edit: And coming back to the headline: The US has just announced to replace the destroyed Bradley and Stryker vehicles, the M1 Abrams tanks will arrive in the coming months, F-16 pilots training for Ukrainians has begun, and there's a two-and-a-half-year timeline for the delivery of 6 Patriot systems.

So no, Biden won't abandon Ukraine.

@redditors_re_racist again? I think almost every month I read the same "news".

1st of all, Presstv.ir is Iranian state tv, so LOL, LMAO even.
2nd of all, no

The long-awaited Ukrainian counter-offensive is now finally here - though it does not seem to be very successful
However, instead of penetrating past the Russian defenses, Ukraine has been struggling.
Nearly a week into the counter-offensive, only minuscule gains have been made
Not only is it a military defeat for Ukraine, but it is a marketing catastrophe for NATO.

Ever since he counteroffensive began Putin and his ilk have been squealing like rabid little rats, trying their best to demoralize Ukraine and Ukraine's partners.
That'd be Uncle Vova's wettest dream, that's what he hopes for right now, to hold on until Ukraine's partners start to give up on their support.
Ain't gonna happen, you slimy little rats.

I hope he does. I'm tired, as a taxpayer, of having my money be used to fund murder. The USA's position is not to end the war as soon as possible, it's to win by any means necessary, including prolonging it. This is done with complete disregard for the lives of Ukranians and Russians alike. Biden, and those influencing this decision, are not benevolent humanists here who want to do what needs to be done to save lives; they are greedy capitalists who see the potential money to be gained here: immediately in the form of MIC spending, and longer term in the form of extracting wealth and installing "friendly" regimes that assist in that. The USA is quickly becoming a victim of the gambler's fallacy here: "we've thrown so much money at it that it's bound to turn in our favor soon, so we have to keep throwing more money at it; to stop now would be to waste what we've put in". Even if that did hold up from a monetary perspective, it ignores the human cost that prolonging the war incurs.