See, so you might understand it after all. You can compare weapons based on the result of the war only if all other inputs (such as population count, tactical decisions and resources spent) are the same, which never happens - and therefore these comparisons are pointless. If a large, rich nation with 100x F16s attacks poor nation with 5x F22s and wins, does it mean that F-22 is inherently worse weapon?
And what do we see when we compare Russia's and Ukraine's military budgets? Over past 20 years, RuSSia has been consistently spending more than 10x as much on their military. In total, they spent almost over 1 trillion USD while Ukrainian military expenditures were less than 70 billions USD. Would you believe that 20 years ago, Ukraine's annual military burget was less that 1 billion? So, while western support made a great difference for Ukraine's army, it's not nearly massive enough to level the playing field in terms of resources spent.
So your claims that Ukraine is 3rd strongest military in the world based on the a single annual budget is kinda funny. Wars are never fought with the equipment manufactured on that very single year, I think you should understand that as well, dont you?