Compared to a week ago
+1200 troops
+7 planes
+3 helicopters
+78 tanks
+79 personnel carriers
+4 MLRS
+14 vehicles
+27 UAV
+1 Anti aircraft

Key takeaways:
All numbers except for UAV are under their prior weekly average, this was to be expected with Russia abandoning the battle for Kyiv, there's is just less areas where Russians assets could be taken down.

You could however make a case that Russia continue to be butt kicked at the same rate on areas where fighting are still going on. We lack the data to know for sure but considering Russia were being stomped prior in the Kyiv region you could argue that's where most of their losses came from prior to this week. Since numbers are not dramatically down this points out to the east fronts being consistent or even producing slightly higher losses for Russians that partially compensated the lack of those in Kyiv region.

The next few weeks would be particularly important as a rise in Russian assets loss would means Ukraine successfully redeployed to meet challenges in the east while stagnation or continued dwindling numbers could mean Russia resolved many of the issue plaguing there initial invasion.

They didn’t really think this through did they.

Sounds like they change their reason for the war every week. But this it at least something I would believe. To have Putin sitting there and thinking "well, we are too stupid to be relevant nowadays even with our gigantic size and natural resources so let's just get even bigger with "snacking" Ukraine to reach at least a little bit of USA's importance". 

I also don't like to see a few countries on this planet to be so dominant but what kind of reason is that to start a war with another country? 

F*** me, why did I click that, when you marked it very graphic.... *shivers* 
I watched like a 1/3 or less and thought, nope, dont wanna watch this.
Thats a seriously depressing video btw, if you dont outright feel sick watching it.

As for why Im late to reply... its been like 6days since I was last on, busy at work.
I logged in, and was catching up in thread.

That's how humans have always been. The Babylonians made everyone around them look like a joke, the Persian/Medes did the same, then the Greeks under Alexander, then the Romans. While no country since the Romans has been quite as heavily dominant over the rest of the world, the world has always had a super power or two at any time.

The only reason China can compete with the USA is because they have like 3-4 times our population. If you evened the populations then their GDP would be a joke compared to America right now. USA is the current super power, there is always a super power, just how it is.

You could argue for both the Franks under Charlemagne, who basically conquered all of France, Benelux, Germany, Switzerland, most of Austria, northern Italy and a part of Spain. It was very short-lived because they screwed themselves over with their succession law, instead of the firstborn they divided up the entire country by all of their sons. Without that law after Charlemagne's death, they probably would be reigning over most, if not all of Europe by now.

Another short-lived one would be the early Arab conquests when they were all united in the 7th century and conquered everything from Persia to Spain and almost trashed the Byzantine Empire. They too broke up soon afterwards, otherwise Islam would be the dominant religion by a long shot.

Finally, you could add the Mongols in their various incarnations, managing to get everything from China to central Europe into their hands, with later conquests also going to the middle east and conquering Persia.

None of them were so long-lived as the Romans, mostly due to succession issues. But during their heights, they were every bit as dominant as the romans were.

^And English Empire was pretty damn big. Hell they even fought a war with China and won just so they could be their opium drug dealer.

Power as in the collective strength of influence, technology, religious uniformity, total population, riches, and more. Collectively, putting all those things together, nothing in China or South America ever had as much power as Rome, and Rome was weaker, collectively, than the Hellenistic world it replaced, which was weaker than the Persian/Medes, which was weaker than the Babylonians. In proportion to their time, and looking at power collectively, no empire on Earth has been as powerful as the ancient Babylonians.

I say this as someone who has done quite a bit of reading books on the Statue of Nebuchadnezzar empires, love that particular sub topic of human history!

When I talk about power, I'm including a lot of things into the collective. What power level your neighbors were when they were conquered and how long your empire lasts are definitely included, so short lived empires or ones that took over a bunch of mostly empty land aren't comparable to what Rome accomplished, which itself isn't comparable to what The Hellenists accomplished, and so on back to the Babylonians. And yes, I'm aware Alexander died and his empire, by the books, split off, but all the lands he conquered remainder culturally unified after for a very long time, some still to this day, which is absolutely insane if you think about it!

Anyway, I'm afraid we are at risk of taking attention away from the Russia/Ukraine situation so I should probably stop this lol