3 ms·
I would not consider the number of lives spent there to be winning no matter how you spin it. Additionally, being a stone's throw from the capital and being rep
by superchroma 4y ago
I would not consider the number of lives spent there to be winning no matter how you spin it. Additionally, being a stone's throw from the capital and being repelled as they were is also not winning by any metric you care to choose. Whether russian propaganda claims the campaign to be a success is another matter, but the bottom line is that the expense has been spectacular and the territorial gains do not justify it.
- TurkishPoptart 4y agoDid you happen to look at the map in the link? Inconvenient truths on politically-neutral war analysis sites are not the same thing as "russian propaganda".
- superchroma 4y agoDon't patronize me. It's a stunning amount of money, equipment and lives lost for a small amount of meaningful land (otherwise quite empty) in a country that the USSR used to entirely control at one point, and that they can easily deploy forces to, right in their backyard. It's a terrible outcome for a "modern war". In Vietnam, America's prominent 'disaster' of a war, roughly 58,000 american soldiers died over 20 years, in awful terrain. Russia has managed to achieve similar numbers on a relatively flat, unwooded country, without achieving much of anything, in under one year. If russia had a functioning media and democracy, this would be the end of an elected government.