If losses are as high as stated by the Ukrainians, or even close to being that high, the amount of territory they have taken is negligible. Urban warfare is next, and if they decide to level every Ukrainian city like Grozny, not only will that take quite a long time but also a ton of supplies. I believe if the Russians do start an indiscriminate, large-scale artillery campaign of urban environments, which will only fuel a bigger insurgency that could very well disrupt backline logistics.
The further into Ukraine they go, the longer their supply lines.
Keep in mind the U.S lost 196 men in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which lasted just under a month.
The US is miles away and above other armies lol, there is no power on Earth that is even close to the US military, they are decades ahead. Secondly, the US was up against an army that was exhausted and far from being peer to peer. This is closer to peer to peer + Western covert support and western weapon systems are flooding Ukraine at a large scale. NLAW's, Javelins, Stingers, its a big deal. If Russia takes half of Ukraine in a month with around 5000 causualties, that is a victory in my opinion, if their economy survives it.
I mentioned previously in my post these weapons would end up flooding the western Ukraine but the timing was too slow and would unlikely make it to the east in large quanties needed to completely stop the Russian advance. So, it looks so far like the West sacrificed Ukraine to bleed Russia. This is a short term plan if Russia passes this test.
You are comparing casualties incorrectly imo, Putin obviously does not consider these casualties as of primary importance or cost, if his administration remains and he takes half of Ukraine up to the Dnieper river and his economy somwhow survives, this is a bigger win than loss to him, especially considering the geopolitcal stage change from the black sea, economic supply chain routes e.t.c. There was a calculus in Putin signing a comprehensive alliance with Azerbaijan, things like this. EU still buying Russian energy, e.t.c.
Also, the west is winning on social media, we don't know the Ukrainian losses yet. I know before this war was launched most of the Ukrainian army was around Donbass front lines. Where are they now? How many are surrounded and cut off ? Did they retreat in large amounts? are they still there? We saw footage of lots of Russian helicopters operating on the first day of the assault but a miniscule amount of them compared to what Putin had mustered on the border (150 helicopters).
Satellite imagery taken on Friday showed several large deployments of ground forces and about 150 transport helicopters in southern Belarus, about 20 miles from the border with Ukraine, a private U.S. company said.
www.reuters.com
Does that mean they already destroyed many of the fixed Ukrainian positions around Donbass or Ukrainian armored elements attempting to reposition? There's next to nothing on footage of Ukrainian troop movements, OPSEC, likely meaning the West is actively censoring social media and involved in the Intelligence side of things.
Remember, Russia launched this war on the calculation that NATO expanding eastwards was a bigger loss than what Putin is doing currently. Social media is all saying Russia is losing big time, but we don't have an accurate picture on the calculus and rationale on the otherside or what the cost has been to the west yet. I'm reluctant to just say, "Russia lose, west win" because of what I'm seeing on Social media. Territorial gains count, too if we also take into account what Russia is capturing. Is the West going to just pay for Ukrainian electricty for the next 15 years now? Is West Ukraine going to be a rump state like Idlib?