No.

I think there are many reports hoping Russia loses. More are speculation and propaganda justifying funding.

Both sides Ukraine in particular are withstanding heavy causality rates.

The fact is Russia has gained integrating territory Ukraine has shed. How is Russia losing and losing what exactly? Troops, it's war. Less than Ukraine. Look at map.

Ukraine however are a bottomless pit relying on Russian loss.

There is no factual media until conclusion. One sided. State approved. Agenda. Both sides are using lies.

Factually what concludes this conflict?

There are other facts. This war is agenda driven. A battle of attrition seeking to draw drag and wear down the other side invested heavily. It isn't fought in the traditional methods. Risk of greater fallout, larger conflict. But it importantly plies agenda.

Traditionally Kiev would be dust. Baghdad effectively was, military and command structure. Instead of domination it captures territory. The rest of Ukraine hasn't been occupied, the border is active. It wilfully drags out because any objective isn't defined by the traditional sense. There is little air superiority. Anti aircraft, enemy flights still active while any military structures keep increasing numbers and resupplying.

It has wider objectives and they are a battle of attrition often in heavily urbanised environments and settings, as it captures territory, instead of wiping out command structures and military supply lines, and defenses. The country is also huge, the largest in Europe, excluding Russia. What was Ukraine troop count prior to this conflict? Millions? 2 million reserves? Not necessarily active. Until currently conscription is at what rate?

Independent perspective. This conflict stinks. It funds a proxy throwing its numbers into a grinder. As the other side captures territory. Until there is only wasteland. It has no logical conclusion until the other loses interest and claims defeat. It can last years. Look at that shithole Bakhmut.

No.

I think there are many reports hoping Russia loses. More are speculation and propaganda justifying funding.

Both sides Ukraine in particular are withstanding heavy causality rates.

The fact is Russia has gained integrating territory Ukraine has shed. How is Russia losing and losing what exactly? Troops, it's war. Less than Ukraine. Look at map.

Ukraine however are a bottomless pit relying on Russian loss.

There is no factual media until conclusion. One sided. State approved. Agenda. Both sides are using lies.

Factually what concludes this conflict?

There are other facts. This war is agenda driven. A battle of attrition seeking to draw drag and wear down the other side invested heavily. It isn't fought in the traditional methods. Risk of greater fallout, larger conflict. But it importantly plies agenda.

Traditionally Kiev would be dust. Baghdad effectively was, military and command structure. Instead of domination it captures territory. The rest of Ukraine hasn't been occupied, the border is active. It wilfully drags out because any objective isn't defined by the traditional sense. There is little air superiority. Anti aircraft, enemy flights still active while any military structures keep increasing numbers and resupplying.

It has wider objectives and they are a battle of attrition often in heavily urbanised environments and settings, as it captures territory, instead of wiping out command structures and military supply lines, and defenses. The country is also huge, the largest in Europe, excluding Russia. What was Ukraine troop count prior to this conflict? Millions? 2 million reserves? Not necessarily active. Until currently conscription is at what rate?

No.

I think there are many reports hoping Russia loses. More are speculation and propaganda justifying funding.

Both sides Ukraine in particular are withstanding heavy causality rates.

The fact is Russia has gained integrating territory Ukraine has shed. How is Russia losing and losing what exactly? Troops, it's war. Less than Ukraine. Look at map.

Ukraine however are a bottomless pit relying on Russian loss.

There is no factual media until conclusion. One sided. State approved. Agenda. Both sides are using lies.

Factually what concludes this conflict?

There are other facts. This war is agenda driven. A battle of attrition seeking to draw drag and wear down the other side invested heavily. It isn't fought in the traditional methods. Risk of greater fallout, larger conflict. But it importantly plies agenda.

Traditionally Kiev would be dust. Baghdad effectively was, military and command structure. Instead of domination it captures territory. The rest of Ukraine hasn't been occupied, the border is active. It wilfully drags out because any objective isn't defined by the traditional sense. There is little air superiority. Anti aircraft, enemy flights still active while any military structures keep increasing numbers and resupplying.

It has wider objectives and they are a battle of attrition often in heavily urbanised environments and settings, as it captures territory, instead of wiping out command structures and military supply lines, and defenses. The country is also huge, the largest in Europe, excluding Russia. What was Ukraine troop count prior to this conflict? Millions? Not necessarily active. Until currently conscription is at what rate?

No.

I think there are many reports hoping Russia loses. More are speculation and propaganda justifying funding.

Both sides Ukraine in particular are withstanding heavy causality rates.

The fact is Russia has gained integrating territory Ukraine has shed. How is Russia losing and losing what exactly? Troops, it's war. Less than Ukraine. Look at map.

Ukraine however are a bottomless pit relying on Russian loss.

There is no factual media until conclusion. One sided. State approved. Agenda. Both sides are using lies.

Factually what concludes this conflict?

There are other facts. This war is agenda driven. A battle of attrition seeking to draw drag and wear down the other side invested heavily. It isn't fought in the traditional methods. Risk of greater fallout, larger conflict. But it importantly plies agenda.

Traditionally Kiev would be dust. Baghdad effectively was, military and command structure. Instead of domination it captures territory. The rest of Ukraine hasn't been occupied, the border is active. It wilfully drags out because any objective isn't defined by the traditional sense. There is little air superiority. Anti aircraft, enemy flights still active while any military structures keep increasing numbers and resupplying.

It has wider objectives and they are a battle of attrition often in heavily urbanised environments and settings. The country is also huge, the largest in Europe, excluding Russia. What was Ukraine troop count prior to this conflict? Millions? Not necessarily active. Until currently conscription is at what rate?

No.

I think there are many reports hoping Russia loses. More are speculation and propaganda justifying funding.

Both sides Ukraine in particular are withstanding heavy causality rates.

The fact is Russia has gained integrating territory Ukraine has shed. How is Russia losing and losing what exactly? Troops, it's war. Less than Ukraine. Look at map.

Ukraine however are a bottomless pit relying on Russian loss.

There is no factual media until conclusion. One sided. State approved. Agenda. Both sides are using lies.

Factually what concludes this conflict?

There are other facts. This war is agenda driven. A battle of attrition seeking to draw drag and wear down the other side invested heavily. It isn't fought in the traditional methods. Risk of greater fallout, larger conflict. But it importantly plies agenda.

Traditionally Kiev would be dust. Baghdad effectively was, military and command structure. Instead of domination it captures territory. The rest of Ukraine hasn't been occupied, the border is active. It wilfully drags out because any objective isn't defined in by traditional sense. There is little air superiority. Anti aircraft, enemy flights still active while any military structures keep increasing numbers and resupplying.

It has wider objectives and they are a battle of attrition often in heavily urbanised environments and settings. The country is also huge, the largest in Europe, excluding Russia. What was Ukraine troop count prior to this conflict? Millions? Not necessarily active. Until currently conscription is at what rate?

No.

I think there are many reports hoping Russia loses. More are speculation and propaganda justifying funding.

Both sides Ukraine in particular are withstanding heavy causality rates.

The fact is Russia has gained integrating territory Ukraine has shed. How is Russia losing and losing what exactly? Troops, it's war. Less than Ukraine. Look at map.

Ukraine however are a bottomless pit relying on Russian loss.

There is no factual media until conclusion. One sided. State approved. Agenda. Both sides are using lies.

Factually what concludes this conflict?

There are other facts. This war is agenda driven. A battle of attrition seeking to draw drag and wear down the other side invested heavily. It isn't fought in the traditional methods. Risk of greater fallout, larger conflict. But it importantly plies agenda.

No.

I think there are many reports hoping Russia loses. More are speculation and propaganda justifying funding.

Both sides Ukraine in particular are withstanding heavy causality rates.

The fact is Russia has gained integrating territory Ukraine has shed. How is Russia losing and losing what exactly? Troops, it's war. Less than Ukraine. Look at map.

Ukraine however are a bottomless pit relying on Russian loss.

There is no factual media until conclusion. One sided. State approved. Agenda. Both sides are using lies.

Factually what concludes this conflict?