Because it appears to be doing far better than expected. That doesn't mean they'll win, but it at least allows for a sliver of hope. Personally, I'm guessing they'll eventually lose a lot of territory without direct Western military intervention, but maybe there will still be Ukrainian rump state left in the West after this, which will still be an achievement if not a "win."
> If Ukraine was doing well, it wouldn't be giving out weapons to civilians [0]...
Ukraine might be doing as well as it is, because of things like that. That's not proof that it's doing well or poorly, but rather it's putting all its resources into an existential fight.
> If Ukraine was doing well, they wouldn't need to make up a story about the Ghosts of Kyiv.
You're being waaay too hard on them. They're ten days into the literal fight for their lives, and if some social media rumor gives them a bit more morale amidst the fog of war, who cares?
> Are we just being setup to be told this is a Pyrrhic victory for the Russians?
That's a bit too conspiratorial. That's a likely outcome, because even after "unprecedented" action Ukraine's allies are unwilling to do enough to clearly tip the scales, but I doubt there's some plan to "setup to be told [that]."