How would that be possible? I guess the article is vague enough that you can maybe take into account the total cost to Russia not inclusive of military costs bu

How would that be possible? I guess the article is vague enough that you can maybe take into account the total cost to Russia not inclusive of military costs but even then, this is incredibly dubious. They do seem to specify at some point that this is about direct war expenses. Now keep in mind, the total russian military budget is only 60 billion $ per year (!!). At that rate, Russia would be not only be spending their yearly war budget every 3 days, but would also spend more money in a year than the USA did in 20 years in the notoriously expensive war in Afghanistan. Russia hasn't even deployed all of the forces it committed to the invasion, and those weren't a majority of it's armed forces to begin with. Yet they will be spending 5 years of military budget by the second week of war? It just makes absolutely no sense even if we were to take all the ukrainian figures at face value (regardless of how extremely unreliable they have been, for example we don't have any proof for any of the 27 claimed downed russian aircrafts while we do have footage for pretty much everything else in the war). It's okay to trust the ukrainian side a lot more, but you still have to keep in mind that war propaganda is probably not a good source for a report. Nevermind that even the absolute best case scenario where all ukrainian claims end up being true still do not come even close to being enough to back up the article's claims The report is so vague, the figures so outlandish and the sources are either terrible or absent that it's hard to even believe that actual researchers have ended up with these conclusions.