true - there are plenty of wars in history where the victor suffered more casualties.I mean, that sounds ridiculous. Because they didn't inflict many casualties doesn't mean that these weren't valid victories. Who said that only by inflicting more casualties it means you are victorious?
Plenty of battles and wars in history where the final victor had actually suffered more casualties than the opponent
This thread is still going strong I see with the copium notion of "inflict more casualties = victory"
You say what you want. I will tell you that come the negotiating phase, Ukrainians will thank their lucky stars that they managed to get all those territories freed from Russia. Meanwhile Putin will be banging his head on the wall for allowing Ukraine to get those back
"They are effectively useless" lol. Lets see what you will say when they start negotiating...
but the victor also is usually in a better position to make up losses.
. . This led them to several industrial innovations like very fast and cheap produced rather than much more expensive and slower to produce forged or milled components.
Meanwhile, 1950's China and 1970's Vietnam had median ages over 10 years younger than the US and fertility rates 3x higher.
Going to Ukraine, and seeing if it possesses the same properties that allowed Russia/China/Vietnam to prevail against the odds: does Ukraine have a bigger population than Russia? does it have a higher fertility rate than Russia? lower median age? is Ukraine known for industrial innovation and efficiency?