> but it's not because Russia sent malnourished troops on donkeyback and lost 27 million men that it "did more" to beat the nazis.

This is a very political question. A lot of people see the "blood loss" as the morally superior thing over kill efficiency.

> Then TFA seems also very slanted: it begins with Russia, China and Iran poisining the web to manufacture consensus but then it's all about Belgium / Leopold in the late 19th century attacking Congo.

Because it's a good and well sourced example to show how long we have had intentional propaganda. Sure, the author could also have used the tendency of Romans to "embellish" even their losses, but it's much more difficult to verify any claims simply because there aren't many sources corroborating or disputing claims.