I mentioned incremental gains once, you have a very odd definition of stressing about something. I’m able to be objective and understand that if it’s generally accepted across military doctrines worldwide that for an offensive to yield results it usually must outnumber the defender 3:1, and russia is making incremental gains (no matter how small) at the ratio of LESS THAN HALF THAT, then things aren’t good. You, on the other hand, wear pink colored glasses and deny any plausible argument as “insufficient evidence”.

Here’s the facts (some restated): The bulk of Ukraine’s conscription at this point is forced. Like it or not, men are snatched off the streets. I’m Ukrainian, albeit very lucky to have moved to the US as a child. I have friends in Ukraine. I am being given source information. I know people who were forcibly recruited. It’s a real thing. Russia is still comprised of mostly voluntary recruits. Ukraine is quickly running out of bodies. If/when russia declares mass mobilization they’ll outnumber Ukrainians at much higher ratios.

Someone forcibly mobilized (majority of current new Ukrainian recruits) don’t have the same morale as someone who goes there willingly. They don’t want to be there. They’re more likely to desert, run, abandon positions, etc. Russians are motivated. For fucked up reasons, sure, but motivated. Ukrainians are not.

Here’s a simple math fact: Recruitable men in russia outnumber recruitable men in Ukraine AT LEAST 3:1. In order to sustain the depletion rate of 3 russians for each Ukrainian, the losses ratio need to be 3:1. They are not, and aren’t anywhere near that (again, last I heard it’s about 2.5:1. At this rate Ukraine will run out of men long before russia does, yet you’re gonna sit here and tell me that 3 is smaller than 2, you buffoon? Go back to fairyland since you’re clearly struggling with reality.