Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by walkhour 1176 days ago
Rusia has been inching forwards for months. That's just a fact. Propaganda has got to you.
2 comments

> Rusia has been inching forwards for months

Emphasis on inches. Ukraine War Mapper [1] does a good job documenting the line of control. It's not a good look for what, until recently, looked like a dominating regional power.

[1] https://twitter.com/war_mapper

Even if Russia is advancing 100 meters (300 feet) a day eventually it will reach the Western point of Ukraine unless something changes.
100 meters / days is 3.6 kilometers a year. To reach western point of Ukraine, Russians need to go about 1000 kilometers - so at 100 meters a day it would take them nice 277 years.

Of course, they are going slower than that. And also, at the current rate of attrition, Russia will run out of Russians long, long before that.

100 meters a day is 36.5 kilometers a year. So that's only 27 years.
But Russia is not advancing 100 meters a day. Not even close.
> if Russia is advancing 100 meters (300 feet) a day eventually it will reach the Western point of Ukraine unless something changes

Something is changing every day as Russia's annual defence budget's worth of modern arms and training are deployed by Kyiv [1][2].

[1] https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_Russia

The man & materials bill they’ve already paid makes that impossible.

This spring will show if they can change the current calculus but if not Russia is going to change the end game.

No propaganda has clearly gotten to you. Occupied Ukrainian territory peaked in march last year. This is a fact, there is nothing to argue. Russia's winter offensive is literally slower than a snails pace.
Please quote the statement that I wrote that you think it's propaganda.

I'll do the same:

> Russia has gone backwards for a year now.

This is false, Russia went backwards, and then went forwards. Maybe you meant to say "has gone backwards with respect to where it was last year". That is true.

Thank you for acknowledging what I wrote is true. When you have two interpretations of what someone write, and one is obviously true and the other is a strawman, please don't choose to argue against the false interpretation. It's against HN's guidelines.
Your haven't quoted me, and your original statement is still false.

Please write precisely, write what you mean, so others don't have to realize you actually mean something else than what you wrote