No, historically Russia haven't lost at home in war.

They withdrew from the Cold War, it wasn't that kind of warfare. They lost to Japan at sea, over disputed Islands, they now possess. Afghanistan wasn't at home. Neither was the Cold War on that battlefront.

But at home they haven't lost historically. In centuries. But there is perhaps Finland. It was a completely different dispute and conflict. Hardly the same comparison. Wasn't it easier to create a larger buffer there. While Finland remained neutral?

Today you're drunk on a conclusion they will. Without realising they haven't. But importantly without asking the question how does a nuclear power lose?

The only deal that can be made Russia will have gained territory. Any mobilisation can historically fight for years, a nation committing to its war machine, supply, conscript, production, with the increasing risk this conflict goes nuclear.

I am emphatically not a Russian. Just somebody concerned. I am asking what is the result? Stating this conflict can drag for years. Look at them recently. Or it can go nuclear sooner. Or peace can be made, but at what costs? Look at those costs adding up. As that cost prompts more risk on what course. Who knows? Except you seem to think something else.