6 ms·

I'm highly skeptical about these numbers. I think it will be some time before we get a realistic picture of what is happening.

TheFreim 5y ago
Agreed. People are quick to call out Russian propaganda when it obviously exists on both sides (it's a war after all).
- aix1 5y ago
  According Alexey Arestovich (a military advisor to the office of the Ukrainian president), the 3500 figure includes killed AND wounded. This was clarified in a comment thread on his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/alexey.arestovich https://www.facebook.com/alexey.arestovich edit: https://imgur.com/a/jnu3yUn https://imgur.com/a/jnu3yUn
  - nomilk 5y ago
    If that's correct, it's quite a big deal. Both the BBC and Wikipedia have very clearly "3500 killed". See here under the section 'Casualties and losses': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...
    - aix1 5y ago
      I obviously don't have any data of my own, but Arestovich is one of the people who deliver military briefings to the nation on behalf of the Ukrainian President's office[1]. I have the greatest respect for both Wikipedia and the BBC, but it's almost certain that their reporting is downstream of his and therefore more likely to be inaccurate. (But yes, that's a huge discrepancy.) [1] https://www.facebook.com/president.gov.ua/videos/372669011355932 https://www.facebook.com/president.gov.ua/videos/37266901135...
    - hotz 5y ago
      Wikipedia isn't a credible source though. The takeaway from the last 2 years is that you can't trust the media. It's all propaganda and lies. Unbiased, objective news died a long time ago if it ever existed.
      - zo1 5y ago
        I got more "info" and "context" from Putin's speech than I did in the first 5 news articles I read about this "incident". All the "news" articles were full with unprofessional and for lack of a better word, angry or childish comments on the part of the journalists. It's as if the collective effort of the news media was to do their best to "stop" this thing, rather than report it, and to do so by generating negative sentiment.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      I honestly have a hard time believing that right now, but I'm open to the possibility. Maybe wars are different than protests, but when there was protesting in the states, there was multiple 24/7 livestreams of people on the ground. So far, all I've really seen are recycled videos that seem to get reposted everywhere and used in the media, but very little engagement. I have a feeling that either: - The resistance in Ukraine is actually very little, so the goal is to try to get people from other countries contacting their politicians to provide assistance. I've seen some news about certain groups being banned from leaving and being encouraged to join the army and about how they are providing information on state media about making molotovs. - Try to make it seem like they are somehow winning by providing high estimates to try to hurt the morale of Russian soldiers. It does seem like thus far Russia has mostly been focused on strategic targets, with some isolated civilian incidents. This makes the most sense right now considering that multiple superpowers are monitoring the situation and if Russia makes a wrong move by decimating civilians, then this could quickly turn into a world war.
      - Dma54rhs 5y ago
        Both sides are appealing their population, troops not to film or post anything so that they won't give out vital information. Still plenty floating around telegram accounts, but wars sure are different than protests.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - bmm6o 5y ago
        > Maybe wars are different than protests You think?
  - nomilk 5y ago
    Are you able to find the comment, screengrab, and put it on imgur? I had a quick scan but couldn't spot it. You're absolutely right that it makes a massive difference.
    - aix1 5y ago
      https://imgur.com/a/jnu3yUn https://imgur.com/a/jnu3yUn
  - lmickh 5y ago
    Casualties in warfare is typically used to measure the lose of the fighting force. Not only does it include killed and wounded, it typically also includes troops lost to disease and starvation. It is pretty common for people to misinterpret casualties as deaths. Especially when people who are not familiar with the terms try to repeat the information to others.
  - nomilk 5y ago
    20 hours later.. FWIW you were absolutely right. Wikipedia has changed its page to "3,500 casualties", and its source to Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-allies-expel-key-russian-banks-global-system-ukraine-fights-2022-02-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-allies-expel-ke... I haven't seen instances of Wikipedia being that wrong before, but in their defence they did state their source, which was Ukrainian military facebook page via BBC, and that fb page did say that (even if it was later clarified that that wasn't what was meant in a comment). Well spotted!
risyachka 5y ago
Those numbers are very close to reality. Source - my family and friends in Kyiv saw it with their own eyes.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Your family and friends have personally witnessed 3500 killings themselves? In that case, the total number over Ukraine has to be a lot larger. Or, you misunderstand how much information your family and friends can confirm. I hope everything will end up OK with your friends and relatives, may they experience peace as soon as possible.
  - risyachka 5y ago
    If the witnessed info matches the news in different parts of the city and country - the reported numbers are obviously close. Sure there is some exaggeration but in this situation it must be supported as it helps reduce aggression and lowers invader's morale. We will of course find the true numbers later, but now is not the time for that.
  - pbourke 5y ago
    At the very least, Russia lost two gigantic IL-76 last night (confirmed by US). We don’t know how many people were aboard, but each one could easily have 200-400. A figure of 3500 casualties (KIA + wounded) does not seem unreasonable.
jacquesm 5y ago
Skepticism is fine, but the undisputed fact is that Kyiv is still in the hands of the Ukranians, the first all out assault has failed and barring a strategy change (for instance: paratroopers) you have to wonder how they plan to go about this.
- ZanyProgrammer 5y ago
  Probably by sheer force of numbers and firepower. I think it’s very likely Russia will win in the end, they’re just going about it in the most half assed way possible that drags this out and increases their own casualties.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    > they’re just going about it in the most half assed way possible that drags this out and increases their own casualties You're saying that they purposefully as dragging this out and purposefully want as many casualties on their own side? What purpose could that serve? Putin wants Ukraine to be a part of Russia again, I'm sure he'd want it to be as little damaged as possible and aims to replace the government first and foremost. Anything else is collateral damage.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > What purpose could that serve? Absorb impact of high tech armaments until Ukraine runs out of those after which they could send in more valuable troops. Armies are like pyramids, tons of 'cannon fodder' on the lower branches, what photos I've seen of the actual Russian troops in Ukraine are mostly scared kids aged 18 to 20 or so, hardly any seasoned troops.
      - enaaem 5y ago
        Do you have sources that this is an actual (modern army) doctrine anywhere? Russia has a demographic crisis. Their population of young men (20-34) will go from 14M to 11M in 5 years. Around a 20% reduction. They won’t have enough men to man their massive borders or maintain their massive infrastructure. Every soldier lost in this war cannot be replaced. Throwing men into the meat-grinder would be the most retarded strategy ever.
dunkelheit 5y ago
Indeed. This is war and at war nobody is interested in telling truth - that would only help the enemy. So far Ukrainians have been really good at propaganda, churning out high-quality memes at a good cadence and achieving almost total "social media superiority". Later their reports turn out to be exaggerated or outright false (it is crazy, but they posted a dogfight clip from a video game like it was a real thing), but people just want to like and retweet what they want to believe, so they accept it uncritically. By contrast, Russian trolls have been relatively quiet.
- QuadmasterXLII 5y ago
  I suspect that some people are knowingly playing along with the Ukrainian social media strategy. Perhaps that is even the right thing to do.
  - dunkelheit 5y ago
    > Perhaps that is even the right thing to do. Interesting discussion, I personally don't think so. Truth is important. If one claims some kind of moral high ground, it is important to base one's actions on accurate information whenever possible and encourage others to do the same, otherwise it will only lead to some kind of "are we the baddies" moment down the line. It has been very disheartening to see some of vocal propaganda critics on my twitter timeline turn into unabashed propaganda machines for the content that they like.
    - the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
      I don’t think enough Russians have enough self reflection to ask themselves the question.
      - foverzar 5y ago
        Well that's just chauvinism.
    - tux3 5y ago

TheFreim 5y ago

Agreed. People are quick to call out Russian propaganda when it obviously exists on both sides (it's a war after all).

aix1 5y ago
According Alexey Arestovich (a military advisor to the office of the Ukrainian president), the 3500 figure includes killed AND wounded. This was clarified in a comment thread on his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/alexey.arestovich https://www.facebook.com/alexey.arestovich edit: https://imgur.com/a/jnu3yUn https://imgur.com/a/jnu3yUn
- nomilk 5y ago
  If that's correct, it's quite a big deal. Both the BBC and Wikipedia have very clearly "3500 killed". See here under the section 'Casualties and losses': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...
  - aix1 5y ago
    I obviously don't have any data of my own, but Arestovich is one of the people who deliver military briefings to the nation on behalf of the Ukrainian President's office[1]. I have the greatest respect for both Wikipedia and the BBC, but it's almost certain that their reporting is downstream of his and therefore more likely to be inaccurate. (But yes, that's a huge discrepancy.) [1] https://www.facebook.com/president.gov.ua/videos/372669011355932 https://www.facebook.com/president.gov.ua/videos/37266901135...
  - hotz 5y ago
    Wikipedia isn't a credible source though. The takeaway from the last 2 years is that you can't trust the media. It's all propaganda and lies. Unbiased, objective news died a long time ago if it ever existed.
    - zo1 5y ago
      I got more "info" and "context" from Putin's speech than I did in the first 5 news articles I read about this "incident". All the "news" articles were full with unprofessional and for lack of a better word, angry or childish comments on the part of the journalists. It's as if the collective effort of the news media was to do their best to "stop" this thing, rather than report it, and to do so by generating negative sentiment.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    I honestly have a hard time believing that right now, but I'm open to the possibility. Maybe wars are different than protests, but when there was protesting in the states, there was multiple 24/7 livestreams of people on the ground. So far, all I've really seen are recycled videos that seem to get reposted everywhere and used in the media, but very little engagement. I have a feeling that either: - The resistance in Ukraine is actually very little, so the goal is to try to get people from other countries contacting their politicians to provide assistance. I've seen some news about certain groups being banned from leaving and being encouraged to join the army and about how they are providing information on state media about making molotovs. - Try to make it seem like they are somehow winning by providing high estimates to try to hurt the morale of Russian soldiers. It does seem like thus far Russia has mostly been focused on strategic targets, with some isolated civilian incidents. This makes the most sense right now considering that multiple superpowers are monitoring the situation and if Russia makes a wrong move by decimating civilians, then this could quickly turn into a world war.
    - Dma54rhs 5y ago
      Both sides are appealing their population, troops not to film or post anything so that they won't give out vital information. Still plenty floating around telegram accounts, but wars sure are different than protests.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - bmm6o 5y ago
      > Maybe wars are different than protests You think?
- nomilk 5y ago
  Are you able to find the comment, screengrab, and put it on imgur? I had a quick scan but couldn't spot it. You're absolutely right that it makes a massive difference.
  - aix1 5y ago
    https://imgur.com/a/jnu3yUn https://imgur.com/a/jnu3yUn
- lmickh 5y ago
  Casualties in warfare is typically used to measure the lose of the fighting force. Not only does it include killed and wounded, it typically also includes troops lost to disease and starvation. It is pretty common for people to misinterpret casualties as deaths. Especially when people who are not familiar with the terms try to repeat the information to others.
- nomilk 5y ago
  20 hours later.. FWIW you were absolutely right. Wikipedia has changed its page to "3,500 casualties", and its source to Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-allies-expel-key-russian-banks-global-system-ukraine-fights-2022-02-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-allies-expel-ke... I haven't seen instances of Wikipedia being that wrong before, but in their defence they did state their source, which was Ukrainian military facebook page via BBC, and that fb page did say that (even if it was later clarified that that wasn't what was meant in a comment). Well spotted!

risyachka 5y ago

Those numbers are very close to reality. Source - my family and friends in Kyiv saw it with their own eyes.

capableweb 5y ago
Your family and friends have personally witnessed 3500 killings themselves? In that case, the total number over Ukraine has to be a lot larger. Or, you misunderstand how much information your family and friends can confirm. I hope everything will end up OK with your friends and relatives, may they experience peace as soon as possible.
- risyachka 5y ago
  If the witnessed info matches the news in different parts of the city and country - the reported numbers are obviously close. Sure there is some exaggeration but in this situation it must be supported as it helps reduce aggression and lowers invader's morale. We will of course find the true numbers later, but now is not the time for that.
- pbourke 5y ago
  At the very least, Russia lost two gigantic IL-76 last night (confirmed by US). We don’t know how many people were aboard, but each one could easily have 200-400. A figure of 3500 casualties (KIA + wounded) does not seem unreasonable.

jacquesm 5y ago

Skepticism is fine, but the undisputed fact is that Kyiv is still in the hands of the Ukranians, the first all out assault has failed and barring a strategy change (for instance: paratroopers) you have to wonder how they plan to go about this.

ZanyProgrammer 5y ago
Probably by sheer force of numbers and firepower. I think it’s very likely Russia will win in the end, they’re just going about it in the most half assed way possible that drags this out and increases their own casualties.
- capableweb 5y ago
  > they’re just going about it in the most half assed way possible that drags this out and increases their own casualties You're saying that they purposefully as dragging this out and purposefully want as many casualties on their own side? What purpose could that serve? Putin wants Ukraine to be a part of Russia again, I'm sure he'd want it to be as little damaged as possible and aims to replace the government first and foremost. Anything else is collateral damage.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > What purpose could that serve? Absorb impact of high tech armaments until Ukraine runs out of those after which they could send in more valuable troops. Armies are like pyramids, tons of 'cannon fodder' on the lower branches, what photos I've seen of the actual Russian troops in Ukraine are mostly scared kids aged 18 to 20 or so, hardly any seasoned troops.
    - enaaem 5y ago
      Do you have sources that this is an actual (modern army) doctrine anywhere? Russia has a demographic crisis. Their population of young men (20-34) will go from 14M to 11M in 5 years. Around a 20% reduction. They won’t have enough men to man their massive borders or maintain their massive infrastructure. Every soldier lost in this war cannot be replaced. Throwing men into the meat-grinder would be the most retarded strategy ever.

dunkelheit 5y ago

Indeed. This is war and at war nobody is interested in telling truth - that would only help the enemy. So far Ukrainians have been really good at propaganda, churning out high-quality memes at a good cadence and achieving almost total "social media superiority". Later their reports turn out to be exaggerated or outright false (it is crazy, but they posted a dogfight clip from a video game like it was a real thing), but people just want to like and retweet what they want to believe, so they accept it uncritically. By contrast, Russian trolls have been relatively quiet.

QuadmasterXLII 5y ago
I suspect that some people are knowingly playing along with the Ukrainian social media strategy. Perhaps that is even the right thing to do.
- dunkelheit 5y ago
  > Perhaps that is even the right thing to do. Interesting discussion, I personally don't think so. Truth is important. If one claims some kind of moral high ground, it is important to base one's actions on accurate information whenever possible and encourage others to do the same, otherwise it will only lead to some kind of "are we the baddies" moment down the line. It has been very disheartening to see some of vocal propaganda critics on my twitter timeline turn into unabashed propaganda machines for the content that they like.
  - the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
    I don’t think enough Russians have enough self reflection to ask themselves the question.
    - foverzar 5y ago
      Well that's just chauvinism.
  - tux3 5y ago