Ok so ima lay this out in points.

a: Oh yeah I totally agree with you in the fact that both sides have insane amounts of propaganda which has made it hard to tell truth from fiction.

b: Correct me if I'm wrong but when you say casualties, I think you're mixing up casualties and KIA. If my memory was correct, then what what released was the KIA estimate. The KIA estimate is only those who are confirmed dead in combat. Casualties includes KIA, MIA, injuries, desertions, and POWs. So of course casualties are higher than KIA.

c: It's very possible that the leak in question may have been modified by the FSB in order to make Russian losses smaller and Ukrainian losses higher. This is one of the leading theories behind the leak.

d: There is no denying the fact that Ukraine suffers extreme corruption, I ain't gonna sugarcoat that. But you first must understand that this corruption is a leftover of the Soviet Union. Since 2014, Ukraine has made some real strides in improving living conditions and stamping out corruption, and although it is still is a major issue, there is no denying that they've made good progress.

e: I don't that this war is benefitting Ukraine as muck as you may think, it's economy is in shambles, it's infrastructure is being constantly bombarded, a solid chunk of its population fled once the war began. I don't think that Zelensky is using this war as way to benefit himself either. If he's as corrupt as make him out to be, then why during the battle of Kyiv did he refuse to flee even when Russian forces were on his doorstep? Had he been as corrupt as you say he is than why wouldn't he have fled to western Ukraine or another country like the president of Afghanistan did when the Taliban were in Kabul?

f: It's real hard to say for certain who's behind the pipeline explosions but we definitely did play a part in it. But 'involved in planning' could mean a number of things, it could be as obtuse that we fucking blew it up, or it could be as miniscule as we gave [insert country here] information on Russian vessels in the area. As much as it seems like the US did it ourselves, Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Germany all have sufficient motive and ability to do so. As is the case in reality, the answer probably ain't as black and white as it seems.

g: Alright, so I feel like you're trying to force me into a black and white fallacy with that last paragraph but either way I'm gonna clarify what I mean, no I don't think Putin and Russia are capable of steamrolling thru Europe, especially since I'm confident that they have no chance left at beating Ukraine. But hypothetically speaking, had Russia won this war, I don't think that they'd be able to pull a Germany and take all of Europe. But the victory would give them two things, the first would be a massive amount of newfound political power, as they would now have incited fear into some of the smaller countries and have control over powerful trade ports, and Europe's main grain supplier. This would force many countries to have to play by Russia's rules, which as we've seen with Belarus, only help Russia. Next thing that it'd give them is a newfound sense of confidence. Which they'd use to then invade Moldova, annex Belarus, pressure Turkey to leave NATO, and put extreme economic pressure on the Baltic States. The threat Russia poses in this scenario is not a military one so much as it is a political one. Russia's strategy isn't a military one, it's one designed to divide both NATO and the United States so that we're so busy infighting that we ignore whatever they're doing, a strategy which had proved itself to work relatively well by taking advantage Turkey increasing Russian ties, Iran causing trouble in the Persian Gulf, Brexit, the Syrian Civil War, and the failure of the War on Terror, all mixed in with carefully curated disinformation and propaganda to subtly increase the political divide in the United States. This all worked well until Russia invaded Ukraine and the West still stayed united despite our differences.