It used to be when you called out something as propaganda, you would cite the truth from another, presumably more reliable, source. Not anymore.
I dont know that the numbers are what this article cites, especially since journalism is mostly a dead art. But by the standard of many here, everything can be called propaganda.
Certainly russian losses have been high. Certainly Ukrainian losses have been high. There are no winners here, just survivors or defeated. The cheerleading is juvenile.
So how about adding a little more meat to your post.
So how about adding a little more meat to your post.
She is as good of a source and most else.
The spectacle of keyboard warriors analyzing war reports and drawing little maps and coming to conclusions about this and that is precious. All the data they use in their careful analyses are propaganda lies from both sides. And thus wrong and pointless. Talk about an exercise in futility.
As has been said: the further from the front, the more gung-ho you see. No one is more pro-war than a desk jockey thousands of miles away.