Is Russia Losing The War? Not At All

A few days ago, my dog and I were playing tug-of-war. Since he's a small breed, I had given him almost 90% of the rope in his mouth, while I was content with holding a small portion of it. My dog, Badem, started pulling the rope towards himself with some back-and-forth movements. I calmly began pulling the rope back towards me, and managed to retrieve most of it. Then, my spouse came to support the dog and they both started pulling against me. With the encouragement from my spouse, the dog became even more spirited, growling and pulling harder. My spouse's assistance didn't provoke any reaction in me. On the contrary, I acted more slowly and cautiously while pulling the rope. Eventually, despite my spouse's help, I managed to retrieve the entire rope from the dog's mouth. It took about 3 minutes. Even though I had the power to potentially injure my dog's teeth or even accidentally harm my spouse by exerting uncontrolled force, I chose not to. Spiderman's words came to mind: "With great power comes great responsibility."

Of course, this was just a game, but if my dog had bitten my arm to the point of causing injury, even if his teeth had latched onto my flesh, I would have taken some time to calmly remove his teeth with my hand instead of swinging him around with my arm to cause any harm to him. A person doesn't want to hurt their beloved ones or household members.

***

If we relate this to the situation in Ukraine, the military operation conducted by Russia has been interpreted in many quarters as Russia's defeat and failure. False pro-Western propaganda suggests that Russia is still using old tactics from World War II, unable to break the strong resistance of the Ukrainian army, and also economically weakened. However, most of these claims do not reflect the reality.

To claim that Russia is using old war tactics, one would need to know and examine Russia's military strategies. Claims like these, coming mainly from Ukrainian and Western media rather than the Russian press, seriously undermine the credibility of this thesis. To evaluate such claims, it is necessary to examine Russian-based news agencies such as RIA and TASS alongside Western agencies and avoid reaching one-sided conclusions.

As for Russia "losing blood" in Ukraine, when Russia began its military operation, there was an expectation among people that Russia could have taken over Ukraine within two days. However, it takes at least two days just to drive across Ukrainian territories from east to west. The expectation that a country with a population of 40 million could be taken over in two days was utopian. The claim that Russia couldn't defeat Ukraine's "resistance" is entirely unrealistic. Many regions of Ukraine, from Crimea to Mariupol, are surrounded by thousands of Russian soldiers, dozens of land, air, and naval bases in the South and East. Ukrainian territories are surrounded by Russian air bases in Belarus in the North and cities like Krasnodar and Rostov in the Southeast. It is not logical to think that Ukraine could resist Russia with only Western assistance in terms of arms. Furthermore, Ukraine's geographical landscape, being flat and not suitable for guerrilla warfare, reduces the possibility of Russia's failure and invalidates claims that Russia is bogged down in Ukraine.

It's important not to overlook the fact that if Russia wanted, it could have occupied Ukraine in a month or two, leaving no stone unturned. The fact that Ukraine is surrounded by Russian land and air forces might have accelerated the occupation scenario. Let's take the 2003 US invasion of Iraq as an example. Millions of people died, and all of Baghdad was destroyed. Planes bombed everyone indiscriminately, even burning down date trees. We can also look at Israel's ongoing relentless slaughter in Palestine; is there anyone left in Gaza? Are there any intact buildings left? This is how an "occupation" happens. However, in the cities of eastern Ukraine, people are living their daily lives comfortably, taking shelter in bunkers when sirens go off occasionally. Russia has no intention of invading by hitting civilian settlements. Russia's military operation is a deterrent response to the Nazi regime in Ukraine trying to enter NATO and threatening Russia's borders. Therefore, the term "military operation" should be used instead of "occupation."

Why has it been slow?

As mentioned above, what is happening is a military operation initiated by Russia to prevent Ukraine from playing its role in NATO's plan to encircle Russia. It is not an occupation. Occupations are not so prolonged and when civilian casualties are at their peak, military operations are aimed at deterring the government rather than the civilian population. It is inconceivable for Russia to occupy and completely annihilate a Slavic-Orthodox nation that shares many historical, religious, and cultural commonalities. Since their languages are very similar, and Ukrainians are racially from the same roots as Russians, it would be absurd for Russia to want to destroy them. Until 10 years ago, half of the Ukrainian population was affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church. Therefore, Russia wants to minimize civilian casualties and is acting cautiously to avoid harming the Ukrainian people. There is no intention to harm civilians for political reasons. Therefore, a slow and cautious approach to the operation is preferred.

Western media that attributes the slow progress of the military operation in Ukraine to Russia's weakness also emphasize that Russia is economically weakened. While Western countries are hopeful that Russia is weakening due to the prolonged war, they are unaware of the military intelligence they have provided to Russia. While I am not an expert on economics I cannot say anything economically but commercial deals with countries like China, India, and Turkey in the long term can compensate for it, however the technical information Russia has acquired from the prolonged war, such as the capacity and effectiveness of the weapons provided by the countries helping Ukraine against Russian weapons, is not recoverable for NATO. For example, it appears that Ukraine is likely to abandon American-made M1 Abrams tanks due to their ineffectiveness against Russian UAVs. The prolonged war has provided technical information that American-made M1 Abrams tanks, considered invincible by the US, cannot compete with Russian technology. Many pieces of information, such as the war strategies of the French soldiers sent by Macron, the weapons they used, the weapon technology of NATO countries, and the war tactics taught to Ukraine, have fallen into Russian hands as a result of this war. Therefore, the benefits of a gradual approach to the operation are endless. Therefore, the West, while maintaining the majority of the world media, is creating a weakened image of Russia in terms of psychological superiority, even though it has lost its own superiority against Russia and Eurasian bloc.