You could say why you think otherwise, for starters.
If you believe that say 600k Ukrainians are dead, as some seem to think, then the total ukie casualties are 2.4 million. Wow.
How many Russians are dead then? Do you believe the MoD's figures? Say 20k dead Russians?
Let me just say that this is one impressive k/d ratio that has never been replicated in any modern war. Brits against flint-tip spear-wielding abos, maybe.
My point is that if you think that the Ukrainian death count is very high, it should follow that realistically the Russian death count is also higher as well. Unless you believe that, contrary to what soldiers on the frontlines are saying, news agencies like WarGonzo and many many others on Telegram that this is a tough tough fight, that this is just a one-sided slaughter the likes of which has never been seen on the battlefield before, well then the burden of proof lies on you, friend, not me.
And yet, despite killing hundreds of thousands of ukies, the Russian army still can't advance! Weird!
Rolo. Your reasoning lacks any serious understanding how this war is being actually waged on the battlefield.
If you believe that say 600k Ukrainians are dead, as some seem to think, then the total ukie casualties are 2.4 million. Wow.
The estimates from highly experienced independent military experts with reliable sources range from a low of 130,000
(Berletic
) to an extreme high of around 280,000 Ukrainian KIA (Macgregor). Anyone suggesting 600,000 KIA is out of line with any realistic observations though that figure is likely very close to total Ukrainian casualties.
How many Russians are dead then? Do you believe the MoD's figures? Say 20k dead Russians?
Figures sourced from Mossad in February 2023 itemized Russian casualties by then as being 18,480 KIA and a further 44,500 injured. The BBC - not exactly a source renowned for its lack of bias on the matter - recently again invested considerable resources in analyzing burial notices, social media announcements, local media coverage, and a wide range of other sources and announcements right across the Russian Federation in an effort to prove the inflated figures but struggled to find evidence for more that 16-18,000 Russian deaths. These figures remain wholly in line with announcements on the matter made by the Russian Defence Ministry.
The idea that somehow 100's of thousands of missing Russian dead could be covered up is simply ludicrous and juvenile, especially with regard to the size of Russian forces committed during the SMO (that have essentially not changed in size over the course of the year) and the single call up of minimal (300,000) reservists thus far announced. Considering the size of the Ukrainian forces at the time of the start of the SMO - circa 450,000 - and the 8 or so desperate call ups since, culminating now in scenes of boys and old men being pulled from the streets in places like Odessa - and the widely accepted figure of around 180-200,000 Ukrainian battle ground forces still in operation, the massive casualty disparity is obvious ( it should also be noted that it is widely accepted among military analysts that few if any of these Russian reservists have as yet been committed to battle).
So simply put there are and never have been enough Russian combat troops committed to the battlefield to make up these absurdly inflated numbers whilst the depletion of the higher Ukrainian force over the year and the repeated call ups tells its own story, as does the vast new graveyards popping up all over Ukraine and well documented on social media etc.
The figure of around 16-18,000 Russian KIA may not include those of the Donetsk Militia its true, but they do include those of the Wagner Group who remain the most heavily engaged direct action force to date. Essentially the various break away militia's, the Wagner Group, the Chechens and the select if comparatively small numbers of regular Russian military such as the paratroopers committed to actual battle have born the brunt of the majority of the fighting to date, with the bulk of the Russian infantry held back in reserve.
So a figure of no more than 20,000 seems in line with all available evidence that is not propaganda derived.
Let me just say that this is one impressive k/d ratio that has never been replicated in any modern war.
That is absolutely correct. The enormous disparity in KIA is due to the use of methodical attritional tactics dictated and driven by the heaviest tactical use of precision artillery since WWI, hyper enhanced by an unparalleled accuracy and integration with other firepower due to technological advances. Ukrainian soldiers themselves increasingly report that they rarely get to engage Russian forces in direct fire fights, rather find themselves being hunted down by surveillance drones etc whereupon they are targeted by unrelenting high accuracy, high volume shelling that is almost beyond comprehension in its kill rate. This is a deliberate and unprecedented tactic that places destroying the ability of the Ukrainian army to self-sustain itself over the capture of territory, whilst minimizing Russian battlefield casualties, hence the deliberate creation of cauldron's to entice the Ukrainians - who are politically forced to focus on territory - into the trap of throwing more and more resources into what all sides admit is a form of unrelenting meat grinder.
This is indeed a completely different form of warfare to those you find imagined in western minds or indeed in any of the unbalanced Hollywood style wars the US instigated over the last 20 years.
My point is that if you think that the Ukrainian death count is very high, it should follow that realistically the Russian death count is also higher as well.
This argument is thus a fallacy because you do not understand the nature of how this war is being tactically managed by both sides. It is not like for like in capacity or in tactics, hence the massive disparity.
And yet, despite killing hundreds of thousands of ukies, the Russian army still can't advance! Weird!
The point
is killing ukies over territory. That
is the tactic. Non tactical advances in themselves - and the capture therefore of meaningless territory - are of the lowest priority and only then when relevant to battlefield needs. If it suits the Russians to engage up close to large Ukrainian forces and lock them into a hugely unbalanced attritional state then that's the priority. If the priority is giving up territory so as to conserve manpower, then that is the tactic. Only children brought up on the most basic idea of warfare think war is about territory. War is about destroying your opponent's ability to fight by whatever means you can leverage. When that is accomplished, territory follows without further effort.
What you also seem to fail to grasp is that the Russians are waging war on the basis of the reality that they are actually fighting all of NATO not just Ukraine. The point of the war is therefore to also attritionally degrade and defeat NATO in Ukraine in the here and now by prolonging the need for NATO to pour in more and more of its weaponry, so depleting its stocks to a level by which it simply cannot again confront Russia over the short to medium term. Senior military sources in the UK, Germany and the US have already going public to express their great concern that the current level of material loss means their military's will not operationally recover within the next 5-10 years. That's why there is such pressure on Ukraine to launch a spring offensive - that's why there are increasing concerns being expressed that Ukraine only has until the summer to somehow pluck victory from the jaws of defeat - that's why the propaganda is getting more and more desperate and divorced from reality - because come the summer the west completely runs out of essential supplies such as artillery shells.
For example, the recent call by the EU to provide 1 million shells over the next 12 months equates to way less than the daily needs of Ukraine as things stand today which is itself already 10x less than is being fired at them by Russian artillery. The EU has no existing capacity to reach that target and even if it manages it all existing stocks will be gone. Furthermore, experts in the delivery of mass manufactured weaponry calculate it would take the EU 3-5 years to reach that annualize output and even then only if the whole alliance goes onto an industrialized war footing, which is politically impossible. So once whatever they do supply by mid summer is expended, that's it - Ukraine becomes defenseless. And only at that point will the Russian forces go on all out attack to clean up the remnants.
If there is one word you need to think about it is the word attrition. Attrition is a winning tactic fought by the side with the resources, expertise and the time on its hands to do it. It is not a two way process. As even the liar of liars Obama put it back in 2016, you don't attempt to wage war on Russia via Ukraine because it has
escalational dominance.
Both Ukraine and NATO are being attritioned. That's the new warfare. That's why the disparity in the figures. The contrary suggestion is outdated, outmoded wishful thinking propaganda.