[trasz]

>How spent are the Russian forces? They haven't even applied 15% of their full forces to this operation

This is in stark contrast to what analysts are saying, which is that Russia already _lost_ about half of its military. Visually confirmed losses of Russian tanks alone are over one thousand units. Russians are so desperate they had to introduce mandatory conscription, despite it being a suicide from political point of view.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and you hadn’t provided a single source that would support your view.

>as democratic as West

Lol, no. Russia isn’t even a dysfunctional democracy; it lacks basic prerequisites to become one. You’re probably imagining Russia is kind of like Eastern Europe, only poorer. It’s not - the "cultural distance” between Russia and, say, Poland is much greater then between Poland and, say, UK.

[aa-jv]

Analysts - on TV - are telling you what to think: because its their job to spread propaganda and make the general public think what is necessary for the Pentagon to get its wishes.

Make the effort to get past the propaganda wall and you will see a much different picture.

Paul Stephan agreed that there is a distinction between democracy and liberalism in Russia: "Russia enjoys robust democratic institutions at least as vigorous as Japan, Korea, Italy, France, and Germany."

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/putin-and-the-russi...

[notahacker]

Frankly, you could watch the Russian propaganda and get a less absurdly rosy picture of Russian performance in the war than the one you're painting...

[aa-jv]

The other side is always propaganda, and our side is always the truth: got it.

[notahacker]

No, but if the other side's official state media is admitting that they might have screwed up mass conscription in their desperate haste whilst nationalist bloggers fume about military defeats and the government threatening them for reporting on them, whilst you're arguing things are going smoothly for them and the reason they're losing territory they now claim to be Russia's is because they casually withdrew their 85% of their army for unexplained "democratic" reasons, you have no interest in truth.

[aa-jv]

Maybe you're only paying attention to the narrative that suits your prejudice.

Fact: it was a "special military operation" - this is not the same as an all-out war/invasion. Putins' hands were tied as to what he could deploy - the West has successfully used its propaganda outlets to parley this as 'Russia military is a fail'. That conclusion is premature - when Russia fields a full war force, the story may be different.

Fact: The army was withdrawn to prevent further civilian casualties in the regions that have already suffered 8 years of catastrophic war, involving the massacre of civilians by armed forces.

As to your appeal to authority figures on TV, I can only assume you are unwilling to make an effort to look further than the idiot box for information, and are therefore not really arguing in good faith. I suggest you peak around the curtains and try not to get distracted by the broken mirrors ..

[notahacker]

The idea that they withdrew from lightly populated Kharkiv and northern Kherson regions they occupied to new positions in the cities to "protect civilians" is ... inventive.

As to your severe reading comprehension difficulties, if you're having to pretend that I'm talking about "authority figures on TV" when I'm pointing out that Russian nationalists on Telegram and Russian state media aren't as enthusiastic about Russia's war as you are, it's not because your cliche ridden contrarianism is coming from a place of actual knowledge...