[armitron]

> Nobody forced Russia to invade a sovereign country (or to consider itself the rightful owner of those lands for that matter), that's entirely their fault.

Alas, the world doesn't operate based on the moral principles you imply, but cold hard realpolitik. Actions have consequences in the great power game between nation states.

> And it was mind bogglingly stupid, as we can see a few months in, with the massive losses to their army and economy.

The Russian economy is doing fine, business with India and China is thriving. "Massive losses to their army" I believe is far from accurate. I'll be greatly surprised if at the end of this, Ukraine isn't economically destroyed, geographically devastated. Territories lost will remain lost, and the deaths of so many people will have been for nothing more than furthering the geopolitical and industrial interests of the main instigators.

[sofixa]

> Alas, the world doesn't operate based on the moral principles you imply, but cold hard realpolitik. Actions have consequences in the great power game between nation states.

If there's anything the Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't, it's realpolitik. Invading a country because "they aren't a real country and they should be ours" is as far as the cold practicality of realpolitik as possible. (Unless you choose to believe Russia's propaganda that it was all due to NATO's expansion, which even if true is even stupider - check Finland and Sweden which joined). Invading with the walking clown of an excuse of an army is also pretty far from practical considerations.

> The Russian economy is doing fine, business with India and China is thriving.

What are you basing this on? Have you checked their official interest rates, inflation rates (of course a bucket of salt is to be applied with those) and the warnings from the central bank governess? Not only is their economy not doing great, they are still yet to feel the effects of being cut off from industrial machinery and electronics they used to rely on. China and India can't replace all their planes, tractors, cars, trucks, phones, computers.

> "Massive losses to their army" I believe is far from accurate

Well thankfully people are actively working on this so we don't have to "believe" into anything. We have cold hard data from the ground in OSINT, compiled by volunteers such as Oryx. The fog of war is certainly obscuring things, but it's plainly obvious to see that Russian losses are massive in absolute and relative terms, in men and matériel. And the Russian army confirms that itself by the type of machines it fields (they've started reactivating obsolete tanks from the reserves) and it's desperate recruitment drives.

[pydry]

>Unless you choose to believe Russia's propaganda that it was all due to NATO's expansion, which even if true is even stupider - check Finland and Sweden which joined

A) Finland and Sweden havent yet joined and may not.

B) There are no ethnic Russians in Finland or Sweden in need of protection from paramilitaries sporting swastika tattoos.

C) No border disputes either.

D) No Russian military bases.

E) It's highly defensible terrain (see the winter war) unlike Ukraine.

F) Want to know where the Nazis launched an assault on Russia and where they almost won due to Russia's extreme strategic vulnerability? Hint : it wasnt the Finnish border.

Just because you dont understand the realpolitik doesnt mean it isnt realpolitik.

[_kbh_]

> A) Finland and Sweden havent yet joined and may not

After Russias constant rhetoric that Ukraine is only the first country on their “let’s genocide post soviet states” list their is 0 doubt that Finland and Sweden will finish the application.

> B) There are no ethnic Russians in Finland or Sweden in need of protection from paramilitaries sporting swastika tattoos.

The largest group of paramilitaries sporting swastikas and killing Russians in Ukraine is Russians from the neo nazi Wagner group so ironically if Russia left Ukraine there’d be less Russian deaths by (Russian) Nazis.

> C) No border disputes either.

Wasn’t any border disputes with Ukraine until they discovered vast natural resources in the Donbas region that would threaten Russia as a gas and oil provider to Europe. Then suddenly there were all kinds of problems then appeared over night and people who suspiciously looked like FSB and GRU officers started a civil war in Ukraine.

> E) It's highly defensible terrain (see the winter war) unlike Ukraine.

Either Ukraine is very defensible or Russia is terrible at war the losses so far have been staggering.

[_kbh_]

> The Russian economy is doing fine, business with India and China is thriving. "Massive losses to their army" I believe is far from accurate. I'll be greatly surprised if at the end of this, Ukraine isn't economically destroyed, geographically devastated. Territories lost will remain lost, and the deaths of so many people will have been for nothing more than furthering the geopolitical and industrial interests of the main instigators.

1,000 tanks and close to 45k soldiers either KIA or WIA is not “massive losses”?. The world thought Russia had years worth of tanks, turns out it only took 6 months before they started breaking out the the 4 man T62s.

[armitron]

These are western propaganda estimates from biased sources. Russian sources claim 7-10000 casualties (deaths and wounded). The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Taking into account that Russia has neither mobilized nor deployed its actual army yet, and that most of the fighting is being done by locals and volunteers from the disputed regions, I fail to see the significance of "massive casualties" much less people state that "Ukraine is winning".

Anyone that looks at the events with a modicum of objectivity should admit that it looks super-dire for Ukraine and the only thing Ukrainians can hope for given current trajectories is further devastation.

[_kbh_]

> These are western propaganda estimates from biased sources.

These are visually verified numbers, not even the numbers being claimed by Ukraine, if you want to improve them you can always point out duplicates and they will removed if they are actually duplicates. The real number is likely higher because not all losses will be photographed.

> Russian sources claim 7-10000 casualties (deaths and wounded)

Russian sources also claimed they weren't even going to invade the day before the invasion happened. Russian casualties are nearly guaranteed to be fake.

> Taking into account that Russia has neither mobilized nor deployed its actual army yet, and that most of the fighting is being done by locals and volunteers from the disputed regions, I fail to see the significance of "massive casualties" much less people state that "Ukraine is winning".

The VDV and Spetsnaz are both in Ukraine, are they not part of the 'actual army'?. In the least we know that the VDV has suffered massive losses, even just the videos of the gravestones in Russia should show you that Russias casualties are numbers are likely very fake.

If Ukraine isn't winning, why is Russias progress so slow?, Kyiv is less than 300km from the Russian and they still haven't made it there yet. Id consider being in month 6 of a '3 day special military operation' to be winning.

> Anyone that looks at the events with a modicum of objectivity should admit that it looks super-dire for Ukraine and the only thing Ukrainians can hope for given current trajectories is further devastation.

Yeah Ukraine has been devastated and lots of Ukrainians (both soldiers and civilian) are dying in the war, but Russia is suffering huge losses too, how else do you explain Russias fielding of old equipment (such as the T62)?. If Ukraine didn't put any resistance it would be even worse, Russia has been committing genocide with impunity in Ukraine and the only thing really standing in there way is the Ukrainian armed forces.