34
Ukraine Battles to Contain Russian Advances Across the Front
(www.nytimes.com)
A lot of people (or Russian bots) seem to have forgotten a basic fact of war: It is much easier to defend than to attack. To successfully attack, you need to be better trained than your enemy and even then, you can expect to lose soldiers and material at a three to one ratio. Russia has not yet regained 10% of the land it lost in Ukraine after the initial sweep to the doorstep of Kiev. Ukraine is fighting for survival. Russia will not have the same staying power. Furthermore, it is good to keep things in proportion. For example, the GDP of Russia is the same as that of Spain. It is global economic minnow. Russia is desperately weak and only its nuclear weapons make it worthy of note, like its ally North Korea. Finally, the will to survive matters: Look at Afghanistan, which had a quarter of the population and one tenth the GDP of Ukraine. It beat Russia (and then the US). Or Georgia, that Russia could not defeat later. Or the Russian statelet of Transneister that was never able to sufficiently destabilize Moldova, a particularly vulnerable state with practically no army. Even if Trump, who kisses Putin's ring, becomes president, Russia will not win.
This is the level of copium liberals are still on? Damn. Although it is nice to see that even in the NYT comments section, there are more "pro-russia" (or really, not NATO bootlicking) comments.
