I have already answered that question even before you asked. Putin has lost ridiculously large amounts of people, more than the US in the entire vietnam conflict even if you cut the estimates to 1/3. He's lost a huge amount of tanks and equipment. He's lost almost all the land he took and has been pushed back on all fronts and the Ukraine is gaining military strength faster than he is. Putin's economy is badly hurt, and will not likely recover even when the war is over at all, while the ukraine will be a beehive of rebuilding and activity that will boost it's economy to insane levels.
If things continue as they have been for the last year, putin will lose the war entirely in a most humiliating and long term fashion. IT will be the end of russia having much influence in countries around the world. Who would be afraid of them then?
It's pretty much the definition of losing.
That is beyond illogical. Putin is LOSING ground and has been for quite some time. So he's LOSING the war. The fact he hasn't LOST yet doesn't mean he's not LOSING. It's like claiming Hitler was winning in 1944 because he still had a foot in Russia. He wasn't.
Putin is literally drafting 300 k replacements and begging allies for ammo. If your argument is that someone is 'losing' because they have lost equipment then Putin is losing even worse than if we use my definition. Putin has lost vastly more equipment and manpower than Zelensky
And Nobody gives more material to someone who's losing. So the very fact that so many nations are giving him gear is a pretty good sign he's winning.
Again tho, the proof is on the ground. Russia has lost most of the ground it took and the remainder is badly threatened. Zelensky has taken much ground back and is poised to take more. He's winning. But if you want to talk about gear it's pretty obvious the russians are losing even faster there. I don't think that's a good measure tho.
they're called maps. Mankind has had them for a while now
Russia is very clearly losing ground. How many Russians would you say are in Kherson, just as an example? Even the russians admit it, there's no controversy here. The russians were badly thrown back and it cost them an insane amount of men and material. At the moment neither side is doing much but we know Ukraine is re-equipping faster than Russia is, and Russia has largely tapped out it's allies supplies of useful material.
Yes - as soon as i stop laughing.
Russia has lost more gear than Ukraine. Russia is resupplying slower than Ukraine thanks to the rest of the world chipping in. Russia has lost most of the land it took and has been driven out of more land than it currently holds. It's also in very real danger of losing land it held at the beginning of the conflict permanently. And on top of it they've trashed their economy as well.
You argue that as long as they are still in Ukraine they are winning. That is very obviously an insane way to measure it. As i said - Germany wasn't "winning" in 44 just because they still held a little bit of russia, America wasn't "Winning" in March of 75 in vietnam just because they still had troops there, simply being present doesn't mean you're winning at all.
In fact - considering he has lost ground and is in LESS of the ukraine than he was... even by your definition he's losing. He hasn't lost - but he's losing. And if he doesn't turn it around he will be utterly defeated in the most embarrassing fashion.
