4 ms·

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

by 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!

by aix1 5y ago

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!