It could well be possible (based on growing evidence) that the biggest threat to Russia from this war has been to demonstrate its lack of military capability (I'm specifically talking non nuclear).
In the West we are used to "measuring" this by numbers. How many tanks? How many soldiers? How many fighter jets?
If you consider the forces (in numbers) Russia targeted at Ukraine it should have been a quick victory. Many, many analysts did not expect Ukraine to hold out for more than a few days.
We've all been watching the progress of the "mighty" convey inching to the capital. Its scale and size is terrifying.
Yet something is "off". Russia has not established air superiority. Their elite VDV (paratroopers) have suffered massive losses, including its Deputy Commander.
Vehicles in the convey and elsewhere are showing signs of poor maintenance and lack of logistical support.
Communication is routinely being recorded by radio hams on short wave frequencies demonstrating a lack of ability to plan operations securely.
The Ukrainian army and population have fought hard and that is absolutely a factor, but it doesn't explain what's happening in totality.
It's becoming more credible that "numbers" when it comes to Russian military prowess really isn't everything.
Sending poorly trained soldiers, style over substance "elite" troops and pilots with limited air experience into battle in an age of technology, using analog communications, poorly maintained machines with food rations that expired in 2015 isn't a disadvantage that sheer force of numbers can necessarily overcome.
The reality is that this war has demonstrated Russia' s lack of military prowess - an extraordinary backfire.
Yes, but let's not forget that the UK/US were completely incapable of taking control of Afghanistan and had to concede to the Taliban after 20 years of failed attempts.