Share.

    26 Kommentare

    1. No_Monk_4477 on

      Let’s pretend pootin is telling the truth, how many people died for that little amount of ground

    2. Cool, only about 600,000 square km left to go. At this rate he’ll finish in about 120 years.

    3. WonderfulGroup2978 on

      5000? Let’s pretend that the front line is around 1000 kilometers in length (it’s not, it’s more but I’m just trying to make this easy) then their troops have advanced 5 km deep – about the equivalent distance one would walk around a large mall or supermarket for a few hours.

      It’s not an insignificant area of land, but for the resources and manpower, the widows, the children who’ll grow up without fathers, as a Russian citizen you would have to ask yourself was that really worth it? What was that for?

    4. 5000km^(2) is like a 70.7km x 70.7km square area. Now stretch that over the 1000km or so of frontline. Doesn’t look so big anymore.

    5. This is the same thing as a grown adult bragging about bullying a toddler. Smol pp energy

    6. FollowingFeisty5321 on

      The irony here is it would have been cheaper to buy that much land legally.

    7. BlueInfinity2021 on

      It sounds like a lot but it’s only 70.71km x 70.71km.

      How much did it cost:

      – Reduced oil and gas sales of between $100-$120 billion per year.
      – Lost market share to Europe that they will likely never get back.
      – A costly arms race with NATO which now has targets of 3.5% GDP military spending and 1.5% GDP towards increasing their defense industrial base, protecting critical infrastructure and increasing innovation.
      – Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
      – Moving Ukraine firmly to the Western sphere of influence.
      – Thousands of sanctions and many Western businesses leaving Russia.
      – Hundreds of thousands of casualties.
      – A massive brain drain.
      – The destruction of much of its miliary equipment.

      We likely won’t know the true extent of the damage to Russia until well after the war.

    8. That’s just a little more than the size of Rhode Island 🙄 what a waste of life and resources. At least it exposed the giant Paper Tiger that used to be feared; but now is just a laughing stock

    9. That is about 70 x 70 km … Which makes about 0.3% of the current Russia’s area. A rounding error one could say.

      Quite an accomplishment for the price of over 1,000,000 dead and mutilated soldiers.

    10. 2 questions:

      How much has he lost again

      How much has he counted only once, because capturing, loosing and capturing again should not count twice.

    11. SirProfessional519 on

      Loosing and reclaiming the same section of land back and forth does not count as capturing.

    12. So they moved their frontlines less than 5 km from where the lines were in 2024?

      At the cost of a million soldiers dead and tens of billions of euros of equipment destroyed?

      That’s… Not winning.

    13. DontBeADramaLlama on

      Ukraine is over 603,000 square km. 5,000 of that means Russia has taken .8%. 100s of 1,000s – if not millions – of Russian lives lost for less than 1%

    14. How much of that did he lose, and how much of it has been the same patches of land.

    15. Anxious_Ad936 on

      Another hundred years at this rate give or take and they’ll have the whole country…

    16. ChimpOnTheRun on

      the length of the front line is 600-1000 km (depending on how we measure and with what precision, and if the Dnipro river is included). This means average advancement of 5-10 km in depth. In a year. This is less than the depth of the gray zone: the zone fully covered by drones and mortars.

      As usual, they’re bragging about something they should be embarrassed about, given the price they’re paying for these advancements and given their perceived status as one of the world’s superpowers.

    17. TheDudeFromTheStory on

      Measuring the success of a „three day operation“ in years seems like stretch even for comrade pussy lips. 

    Leave A Reply