4 ms·
It’s hard to know exactly how heavy Ukrainian losses in the first phase and this second phase were; I suspect we’ll find out that they were quite a bit heavier
by rainworld 4y ago
It’s hard to know exactly how heavy Ukrainian losses in the first phase and this second phase were; I suspect we’ll find out that they were quite a bit heavier than media coverage would lead us to believe.
Actually, if you read Western mainstream media front line reports, past the headlines and between the lines, a picture of very heavy losses emerges. Units completely depleted or rebuilt several times. Territorial Defense volunteers sent into the trenches with hardly any preparation [0]. And so on. But somehow such reports never manage to shatter the Conventional Wisdom.
[0]: Just one recent example: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/world/asia/ukraine-russia-war-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/world/asia/ukraine-russia...
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Actually, if you read Western mainstream media front line reports, past the headlines and between the lines, a picture of very heavy losses emerges. You don’t even have to read “past the headlines and between the lines”. The most common estimates I’ve seen are around 120K killed+wounded for Ukraine, which are very heavily casualties. Not as heavy as the 200K the same sources are estimating for Russia, but still very high. This is a meatgrinder of a war. This is very clear.
- rainworld 4y ago[flagged]
- dragonwriter 4y ago> All in all Russian dead do not exceed 40k at the moment. Based on…what? Intuition?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- leereeves 4y agoRelative to population, 120K casualties in the Ukrainian forces is much worse than 200K in the Russian forces.
- TMWNN 4y ago[dead]