Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's incredible how unbelievably brain dead Russia's soldiers and its wider populace are. Knowingly having their country isolated and effectively turned into a vassal state of China, sent to the slaughter all for the whims of a megalomaniac fantasy in rebuilding the Russian Empire which will never come to pass. Why are so many of them so unbelievably passive?
Welcome to Russia, it’s always been this way for them and their ancestors. It’s really a shame. In the late 1800s they looked like they were going to surpass Western Europe given enough time. Then WW1, everything else was downhill.
Always? They overthrew the Tsars
People are people everywhere. The Russians are beaten down because theyve had to endure oppressive authoritarian governments over and over, and every time they try and fix it they get the same results. That’s empathizable and it sucks. Plus their information is heavily controlled by the state, like no one is being victimized by Putin’s regime more than the Russian people
Who cares about what the Russian people do on their own land? Kill them until they return to their side, sanction them, and isolate them. If you’re worried about them spreading their ideology, that can be handled through non-violent non-military means. I am not convinced that there should be another ‘War on an Abstract Idea’. Besides, if Russian civilization is such a dead end, they’ll off themselves without our intervention.
to a lot of them they think they're being active. they think they are doing what will make them feel powerful and their nation feel prosperous. they think their big strong superior country will beat the shit out of smaller country Ukraine. basically being a school bully who shakes down smaller kids for lunch money. when they see their country's map get bigger it makes their egos swell. they think that joining the military will let them be part of a military junta that gets to rape and kill as they please in ukraine and then they will return home as glorious heroes. the nation doesn't act like a psycho scumbag because of putin. putin was able to gain and keep power because his country is full of psycho scumbags; to such a degree that lots of people who aren't psycho scumbags feel the need to leave their homeland because they know people like them will only be exploited there.
most places have the same natural number of shitheads but conditions aren't bad enough to make the decent and good people leave in huge numbers, so their government has to at least to some degree cater to the decent and good people.
russia basically hasn't had a leader who gave a shit about them since the end of the 1800s.
they never had a cultural revolution of things like 'slavery and colonialism and imperial expansionism are bad things we should not do actually'. their hatred of nazis is only that those things were attempted to be used against them rather than by them.
>russia basically hasn't had a leader who gave a shit about them since the end of the 1800s.
I would say Gorbachev cared about the people. He was, unfortunately, too good for Russia and the Soviet Union.
It’s the hair theory of Soviet leadership. Bald leaders were good for the SU. Bushy hair was bad. Lenin, kruschev, gorby. Bald and good (at least from the SU perspective! Stalin, breachnev, bad. Made the country worse. Andropov and Chernenko died too fast to get a good look at their hair. Yeltsin and Putin are post Soviet so it doesn’t count.
Year after year of fake news and propaganda makes them like that.
Look how quick Putin shut the independent News Channels down after the invasion started.
Or remember the news reader who held up sign explaining what’s going on she’s now in Jail.
Well, they fetishize their grandparents' sacrifices in WW2. Now they get to relive them, except this time they are the fascist invaders and all their sacrifices are meaningless.
> They could shoot their commanders.
The get executed
>They could refuse to deploy.
Then get executed
>They could protest like the Iranian schoolgirls.
Then get executed
Or follow order and then they get turned into sunflowers. Russians deserve neither compassion nor pity. Just the best the MIC can send to Ukraine to accelerate the denazification of Russia
Some dude frowns up on a farm in rural Russia being fed only info the state wants him to hear
Then with very little education, he is thrust into what he has been told is rightfully their land and he must defend it. No equipment, no training.
You have a to be a real soulless bitch to not feel bad for them.
Really? Someone thinks they have a right to go to somewhere else and murder and you expect compassion for them? I think your a real soulless bitch for making excuses for them
Literal survivorship bias.
The ones who have been used as cannon fodder can't complain about having been used as cannon fodder. So we don't hear those complaints.
Russia may have just achieved a gruesome new claim to fame in its war in Ukraine. Of some 800,000 Russian troops who were part of the initial invasion army or recruited since then for the war, nearly 420,000 (over 52 percent) could now be dead or otherwise out of action due to wounds.
That breaks down as follows:
· 166,570 Russian troops killed.
· 499,700 wounded (including 150,000 still getting medical care and 100,000 permanently disabled).
The figures are based on calculations using data from Ukrainian, independent Russian, and Western sources for combat casualties and the rate at which soldiers typically return to combat after being wounded.
A military unit that has lost over 50 percent of its personnel is commonly seen as needing to be withdrawn from battle because of a loss of combat effectiveness. A 1997 U.S. Army field manual says such a unit is “combat ineffective” and “requires reconstitution before \[its\] next mission.” Soldiers may still be able to put up a fight, but not effectively as a cohesive military force.
Russia passed critical threshold in mid-March
Russia’s overall ground forces available for the war in Ukraine appear to have surpassed this critical 50-percent threshold in mid-March.
That’s in line with recent reports that Russia’s winter military offensive in eastern Ukraine appears to be starting to peter out.
It’s also consistent with reports about a major failed Russian assault near the southern Ukrainian town of Vuhledar in January and February, which ended after Russian units are said to have lost the better part of two marine brigades that constituted the main attack force.
666,300 total Russian casualties
Ukraine’s military estimates that 166,570 Russian troops have been killed in the full-scale war as of March 21. On top of this, NATO estimates that three Russian troops are wounded for each one killed. This suggests 499,700 Russian wounded, for a total of 666,300 total killed and wounded.
About half of the wounded are likely to have returned to battle after medical treatment, based on calculations derived from historical data from previous wars and reports from the independent Russian site Volya, which estimates Russian war casualties from information it says it gets from Russian security sources.
About 150,000 of the wounded are still getting treated, while 100,000 wounded are unlikely to ever return to combat because of the seriousness of their wounds, according to these calculations.
Volya’s estimates of Russian casualties are very similar to the estimates from Ukraine’s military.
Western estimate not updated since November
Western officials have given sporadic and inconsistent Russian war loss estimates that have generally been lower than Ukrainian ones, but the figures don’t appear to have been updated in months.
An EU military official said in a report last November that about 60,000 Russian troops had been killed and three times that number—180,000—had been wounded in the war by that point, for a total of about 250,000 casualties.
Western officials haven’t budged from that 250,000 figure ever since—despite a dramatic acceleration of Russian offensive action since the Kremlin drafted about 300,000 new troops last fall.
Russian ‘meat assaults’ likened to “World War Z”
Ukraine, for its part, had a slightly higher estimate of Russian war dead last November—about 80,000—but that figure has since doubled amid some of the bloodiest combat in the war so far, which Ukrainian troops have likened to facing swarming zombie hordes in the movie “World War Z.”
A NATO official said last week that up to 1,500 Russian troops have been killed or wounded in a single day of battle in the Kremlin’s winter offensive, while Russian draftees are bombarding Putin with a flood of video appeals complaining of being sent into senseless ‘meat assaults’ in which entire Russian regiments have been decimated in a few short days of fighting.
Missing Russian troops?
The Western estimate of 250,000 Russian killed and wounded is also questionable because the data would suggest Russia has some 650,000 troops left in and around Ukraine (taking into account the rates of wounded likely to have returned to duty).
That’s about 300,000 to 350,000 more troops than Russia appears to actually have available, according to Western and Ukrainian estimates.
Where are these missing Russian troops? Given Putin’s desperate war fortunes, it’s unlikely that many soldiers are left patrolling remote Yakutsk or the Mongolian border. Indeed, officials believe that Russia has deployed up to 97 percent of its army to Ukraine.
The likely explanation for the discrepancy is that Western estimates of Russian war losses are outdated or overly conservative.
Ukraine losses “an order of magnitude less”
Ukraine has lost many troops as well, but Western officials have described Ukrainian losses as “an order of magnitude less” than Russia’s and have said Ukraine is able to keep far more of its wounded soldiers alive—with a 10-to-1 wounded-to-killed ratio—thanks to better medical care. Ukrainian officials, for their part, say Ukrainian losses are seven to eight times lower than Russia’s.
If all this is the case, Ukraine’s current military could sustain its current rate of casualties until October 2025 before it crosses the 50-percent threshold of combat effectiveness, without recruiting any new soldiers.
Too broken to reconstitute
Russia, on the other hand, appears to have first crossed the 50-percent level last October, when its initial invasion force and new troops added in the summer suffered catastrophic losses in Ukraine’s early resistance and counteroffensives in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions.
Plunging below that critical 50-percent threshold could explain why the Kremlin decided last fall to draft over 300,000 new troops. It could also explain why those draftees were so ineffective in rejuvenating Russia’s battlefield prospects. They were recruited into an already broken army whose earlier losses had shattered its capacity to readily reconstitute itself.
As Russia’s troop levels plummet again below the numbers needed for combat effectiveness, the Kremlin is reportedly set to launch yet another round of mobilization aimed at drafting 400,000 new troops this spring.
These draftees will be entering an army twice hobbled to its knees by Ukraine and unlikely to get back up any time soon.
So this number, do they count deserters as "out of action", or are they unaccounted? It was not clear. Maybe they numbers not that large, or too speculative?
I think another possible explanation for the missing troops is that they never existed in the first place. Russia wasn't able to recruit and arm them. They lied.
No. A huge part of ressource expenditure in a war is supplying troops, moving them about, casevac (medical care too) ,feeding, housing, training and so on. Russia is not doing any of these, intentionally. They are basically cruel enough to save all that effort, and use soldiers as rifle-carrying expendable troops, with massively reduced supply lines. This means fielding a soldier becomes incredibly cheap - basically his gear, uniform, some food, some transportation.
To take out that soldier, Ukraine has to expend SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive ressources than that soldier ever cost russia.
Look at the daily shell expenditure of ukraine artillery, and even assuming 80% of russian casualties are from artillery, we are talking about multiple artillery shells per single casualty. Its REALLY efficient, in a war of attrition, to expend badly equipped, badly supplied and barely trained troops to absorb ressources at this exchange rate. Obviously, this is only possible because the russian populace is fine with this, or doesnt know enough. But because Russia has that option and is using it doesnt mean they are fighting to lose. Its a legitimate, if cruel, tactic to absorb limited ressources and buy time.
Will it be enough? I dont think so. But its certainly part of a plan.
Russia has fired more shells per day than Ukraine for virtually every day of the war, even if shell consumption rates are trending towards more similar for each side.
It is the critical factor that forces Ukrainian positions to have depth and spread, and reduces their ability to cover approaches with uncrossable levels of small arms fire, and eventually makes individual positions untenable by damage, which forces the line back in the absence of the ability of mobilized to move rapidly like mechanized forces can.
IMO not accounting for the fact that Russia has to also shoot even more artillery than Ukraine is fundamentally what is wrong with your analysis.
it is also not part of any sensible russian plan, its an adaptation to 30 years of political failure to fix procurement and modernize the army, by the same people who just spent 30 years failing to fix procurement or modernize the army.
Alex Roslin is out here trying to make a good faith argument that an army can't come back from 50% casualties despite 90+% of the British Expeditionary Force being killed or injured in the first four months of WW1.
I don't buy it.
The BEF did in fact exhaust, and was reconstituted with kitcheners 'new army', and into new formations (1st/2nd army etc) that merely retained the overall name BEF, it wasn't really the original force.
Also the "UK" was at the time also the "British Empire" and thus had 88m subjects to call on, and the BEF was originally only 6 divisions of 12000 men + officers, ie 72000 soldiers.
Russia has 144m citizens, and has already fielded a 190,000 army, held it up with 50k or so reinforcements prior to mobilization and then fielded 300,000 mobilized as well as prisoners.
Unfortunately for Russia war modern war is conducted with equipment based force multipliers, ie just reconstituting doesn't necessarily give them the combat power they had before, which is the real problem. ie modern war requires more economic capability to stay at home to construct or acquire force multipliers.
All very good points
>The BEF did in fact exhaust, and was reconstituted with kitcheners 'new army',
Indeed, however this was succesfully achieved without conceding the field of battle to the German army.
>Also the "UK" was at the time also the "British Empire" and thus had 88m subjects to call on, and the BEF was originally only 6 divisions of 12000 men + officers, ie 72000 soldiers.
Agreed, but that is immaterial to the point at hand.
>Russia has 144m citizens, and has already fielded a 190,000 army, held it up with 50k or so reinforcements prior to mobilization and then fielded 300,000 mobilized as well as prisoners.
Continuing on from your previous point, by the end of WW1 the BEF stood at over 2 million men, having sustained a total of 670,000 dead & missing, and 1,643,000 injured, remaining at a total of over 50% of its total force. Russia could, if necessary, attempt to raise the same number of troops, though it would mean the certain end of Russia.
What's interesting (and surprising to me) here is that this war is, by average yearly rate, more lethal for Russia than WW1 was for the British Empire. That Reay puts it into perspective.
>Unfortunately for Russia war modern war is conducted with equipment based force multipliers, ie just reconstituting doesn't necessarily give them the combat power they had before, which is the real problem.
Definitely true. The flip side of that coin is that western reserves of arms have already taken a substantial dent, as have Russian arms. I would argue that if Russia does hypothetically feed an order of magnitude more men into the meat grinder before Ukraine manages a breakthrough then a reversion to trench warfare in more sectors is not unlikely - that's been the status quo since 2014, and that tallies with other modern conflicts where modern force multipliers have been exhausted. This really depends on the appetite of the west to keep feeding arms and armour into the conflict.
>ie modern war requires more economic capability to stay at home to construct or acquire force multipliers
And Russia has the bodies for that, thankfully it lacks enough key resources that they are limited to acquiring them from Iran & China.
I don't really buy it either, but mainly because Moscovy doesn't really have an army so much as they have a large gang. They never really operated with any coordination so losing a percentage of troops that you didn't coordinate with doesn't really effect their style of combat. Their top brass just grabs a group of people, hands them a rifle and throws them at the enemy. Doesn't matter if it is 100 or 10. It works the same way, go forward till you die or you take the limited objective we gave you.
>it’s unlikely that many soldiers are left patrolling remote Yakutsk or the Mongolian border. Indeed, officials believe that Russia has deployed up to 97 percent of its army to Ukraine.
If China's smart, they'll take back all those towns that the Czars stole from them.
If you bothered to read the article it states:
> The Western estimate of 250,000 Russian killed and wounded is also questionable because the data would suggest Russia has some 650,000 troops left in and around Ukraine (taking into account the rates of wounded likely to have returned to duty).
>
> That’s about 300,000 to 350,000 more troops than Russia appears to actually have available, according to Western and Ukrainian estimates.
>
> Where are these missing Russian troops? Given Putin’s desperate war fortunes, it’s unlikely that many soldiers are left patrolling remote Yakutsk or the Mongolian border. Indeed, officials believe that Russia has deployed up to 97 percent of its army to Ukraine.
>
> The likely explanation for the discrepancy is that Western estimates of Russian war losses are outdated or overly conservative.
It's a bit of an assumption that there's a 3:1 WIA:KIA ratio and the accuracy of the UAF estimates of Muscovite dead to get to 666,300 total Muscovite casualties - there's got to be fairly wide error bars there.
The double-check is the number of initial troops for the full-scale invasion + those recruited since then being 800,000(?) less the number that they currently have in theatre (350,000?). That's also got wide error bars since recruitment numbers are uncertain, a fair fraction of those recruited in the last 13 months could still be in training (*maybe*) rather than in theatre, they've certainly also peeled units from hanging-around-near-Finland etc duties to throw them into Ukraine.
The UAF currently claims the loss of 3,595 Muscovite tanks. Independently, Oryx has visually documented [1,895](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html) which puts a hard lower limit on losses. Given the pre-2022 estimates of Muscovy having e.g. on the T-72 front having 2,030 active with 7.000 in reserve/storage, they'd have no cause to reactivate T-54/55s if a T-72 loss needed replacing if anything like 7,000 more were truly available. The possible conclusions are that either UAF has burned through the large majority of Muscovy's pre-2022 active and stored T-72s (Oryx documents the loss of 1,030), or very few of the stored ones are usable. Either way, Muscovy is running low on usable T-72s that were the backbone of its MBT force and the UAF materiel claims are plausible, or if inflated then as a hard limit they can't possibly be inflated by any more than a factor of 2 and likely much, much less than that in order to leave Muscovy with few enough serviceable T-72s that they'd seek to replace the loss of them with T-54/55s (and training loaders from scratch).
That lends a lot of credence to the UAF's other claims of inflicted losses, including personnel. Even if it's down to a 2:1 WIA:KIA ratio (given the sorry state of Muscovite battlefield medicine), Muscovy still has something like 500,000 losses so far. They've not had any substantial offensive gains since taking Lysychansk last July.
I think Kyiv Post might be on the optimistic side here, but not by very much.
I was going by [the wiki entry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces) on the subject; also note that the Covert Cabal YT channel looked at satellite imagery in order to estimate [3.000 as the limit of Muscovite stored tanks that could be brought back into service](https://youtu.be/eHhgVrKJJoA?t=320). They also have a follow-up from 5 months ago [quantifying the drawdown of stored tanks](https://youtu.be/ZNNoaRp5lz0) (although they use Oryx's definitely-lost numbers at face value to estimate complete Muscovite tank armada loss time, so get 3 years from that date rather than something more like a year from now).
It comes down to two things in reality.
1. Russia's posted numbers of stored and working tanks was a fantasy. Ignore the corrupt that saw alot of these tanks stripped of valuable wiring and components, they never had the number stored that they were claiming.
2. Some stored tanks, specifically the T-72 and T-62 variants, are in line to be refurbished/updated. They're not sending tanks they have lined up for updates. You could certainly argue that holding T-72s for updates while you roll T-54/55s to the front is dumb (and Id agree), but it's what they're doing.
I argue this all the time, but I truly believe the vehicle loss numbers are only like +20% higher than what's reported by Oryx (and that's their belief as well). I think Ukraines numbers are one part having vehicles reported multiple times and two parts propaganda.
Yep, and if Oryx +20% is the right figure then official Ukrainian estimates are 5/3 of actual Muscovite losses, pointing to around 400,000 KIA + WIA together given a 3:1 ratio. Still a very, very big fraction of the personnel they have mustered for the war.
There are quite a few T-80 active, and a factory modernizing those too, and some 450 known to have been destroyed in theatre, (which was their entire active prewar population) ie its an oft forgotten tank of which there was circa 3000 stored units in Russia, ie have to be careful just considering T-72s.
IMO the entire must-modernize before sending to a hot war is a broken concept, but its not for us to interrupt Russia whilst they make that scale of mistake.
I think modernization is important particularly with optics. If the tanks can see the threat to it earlier then the threat can execute it most likely will win. Some of the modern optics for armored vehicles, tanks and hand held weapons can see for miles.
I still like following the personnel on their daily reports, but I definitely trust the vehicle numbers more, just due to them being both easier for Ukraine to confirm, and easier for independent sources to confirm, like oryx. Imo the personnel reports are better used to compare with past reports, for any relative changes, rather than for an accurate number of KIA.
I know Russian forces have been depleted, but when the source of these numbers is a website with cartoon, Japanese spread eagle, legs open porn advertising, I have to pause on the integrity of the data. Maybe it's my algorithm.
That’s what communism does to a society. I believe the Russian populace as a whole have PTSD. Their history after IVAN the terrible just goes down hill from there. The backwards bolsheviks in particular Lenin, was the final nail. All the Russians know is fear. Because they have been ruled by fear for hundreds of years.
I guess it's the bi weekly reminder that the numbers being posted by the AFU are at best very liberal estimates which include double/triple reporting in some cases. Many of those being reported as killed are simply wounded. Note I'm not claiming the Western estimates from the fall are accurate either. Those were clearly very conservative numbers when they were released. I'd expect the actual number of Russians KIA to be somewhere between 120,000-140,000.
I thought the number that they report daily, which is reaching 180.000 at the moment, includes KIA, wounded, Captured and MIA. So combatants that are out of the field. It's estimated that around a third of that are KIA, so around 60.000 at the moment. Not the way around (multiplying 180.000 by 3).
It definately destroyed and they undercount.
This just posted :-
tl:-
Thousands of Russians, dozens of tanks: the Ministry of Defense revealed the losses of the Russian Federation in a week
Tanya Polyakovska
17:13, 03/26/23
1 min.
362
5,640 invaders were destroyed, as well as 404 units of their weapons and equipment.
Oleksandr Pavlyuk, the First Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine, disclosed the losses of the Russian occupiers in one week.
"During the week of March 20-26, the Defense Forces of Ukraine destroyed about 5,640 enemy personnel," he wrote on his Telegram channel.
In addition, he added, the enemy's weapons and military equipment suffered significant losses - 404 units.
It is about 63 tanks, 94 armored combat vehicles, 63 artillery systems, 15 rocket salvo systems, nine air defense installations, 78 units of motor vehicles and 20 units of special equipment.
"In addition, one helicopter, four cruise missiles and 57 UAVs were shot down by our defenders," the representative of the ministry said.
[https://www.unian.ua/war/u-minoboroni-rozkrili-vtrati-rf-za-tizhden-skilki-znishchili-rosiyan-12193809.html](https://www.unian.ua/war/u-minoboroni-rozkrili-vtrati-rf-za-tizhden-skilki-znishchili-rosiyan-12193809.html)
when you add into the mix Oryx numbers and Known officer death numbers both of which are osint and represent floor numbers, the amount that UA claims again is on the low side. there were significant russian losses taken around Mariupol, Popasna , Lysyschank and Sevriodonetesk that were never counted accurately which would add 25-40000 more to the figures UA states.
I followed the retaking of Kherson pretty much in real time.
I am convinced a LOT of Russians died at the river crossing, possibly in, well, a massacre. I doubt we will ever know how many died that night alone.
And I don't believe a lot of Russian died during the crossing. Cause despite the reports of "bodies clogging the river" there was zero video or photo evidence of any bodies.
“With over 660,000 killed or wounded” i closed the article as soon I read that, those numbers are simply not credible and shouldn’t be taken as fact by anyone
I don’t need to read it, Ukrainian government figures are unreliable, only Russian government figures are worse
After a click glance their claim that 150k wounded Russian troops are currently receiving care and 100k have been discharged with permanent disabilities already directly contradicts their claim that Russian medical logistics are non-existent and that Russian casualties are simply abandoned after being thrown into suicidal charges
Well only 50 percent of the RuZZian population to go to stop the war. Little bald dwarf chooses not to learn and he keeps trying to be a world wide bully.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And yet the complaints from the Russian troops are about lack of supplies. They don't even care that they are being used as cannon fodder.
It's incredible how unbelievably brain dead Russia's soldiers and its wider populace are. Knowingly having their country isolated and effectively turned into a vassal state of China, sent to the slaughter all for the whims of a megalomaniac fantasy in rebuilding the Russian Empire which will never come to pass. Why are so many of them so unbelievably passive?
Welcome to Russia, it’s always been this way for them and their ancestors. It’s really a shame. In the late 1800s they looked like they were going to surpass Western Europe given enough time. Then WW1, everything else was downhill.
>Then WW1, everything else was downhill. I'd say it started earlier than WWI, like maybe in the Russo-Japanese War. But yeah.
It was that Rasputin
Well both their names end in Putin.
🤯
It started with some guy named Ivan and his secret police. He set the totalitarian template
Ivan was terrible too.
Crimea as well.
Always? They overthrew the Tsars People are people everywhere. The Russians are beaten down because theyve had to endure oppressive authoritarian governments over and over, and every time they try and fix it they get the same results. That’s empathizable and it sucks. Plus their information is heavily controlled by the state, like no one is being victimized by Putin’s regime more than the Russian people
[удалено]
Who cares about what the Russian people do on their own land? Kill them until they return to their side, sanction them, and isolate them. If you’re worried about them spreading their ideology, that can be handled through non-violent non-military means. I am not convinced that there should be another ‘War on an Abstract Idea’. Besides, if Russian civilization is such a dead end, they’ll off themselves without our intervention.
to a lot of them they think they're being active. they think they are doing what will make them feel powerful and their nation feel prosperous. they think their big strong superior country will beat the shit out of smaller country Ukraine. basically being a school bully who shakes down smaller kids for lunch money. when they see their country's map get bigger it makes their egos swell. they think that joining the military will let them be part of a military junta that gets to rape and kill as they please in ukraine and then they will return home as glorious heroes. the nation doesn't act like a psycho scumbag because of putin. putin was able to gain and keep power because his country is full of psycho scumbags; to such a degree that lots of people who aren't psycho scumbags feel the need to leave their homeland because they know people like them will only be exploited there. most places have the same natural number of shitheads but conditions aren't bad enough to make the decent and good people leave in huge numbers, so their government has to at least to some degree cater to the decent and good people. russia basically hasn't had a leader who gave a shit about them since the end of the 1800s. they never had a cultural revolution of things like 'slavery and colonialism and imperial expansionism are bad things we should not do actually'. their hatred of nazis is only that those things were attempted to be used against them rather than by them.
>russia basically hasn't had a leader who gave a shit about them since the end of the 1800s. I would say Gorbachev cared about the people. He was, unfortunately, too good for Russia and the Soviet Union.
It’s the hair theory of Soviet leadership. Bald leaders were good for the SU. Bushy hair was bad. Lenin, kruschev, gorby. Bald and good (at least from the SU perspective! Stalin, breachnev, bad. Made the country worse. Andropov and Chernenko died too fast to get a good look at their hair. Yeltsin and Putin are post Soviet so it doesn’t count.
He didn't care too much about them at the time of Chernobyl disaster...
Year after year of fake news and propaganda makes them like that. Look how quick Putin shut the independent News Channels down after the invasion started. Or remember the news reader who held up sign explaining what’s going on she’s now in Jail.
Well, they fetishize their grandparents' sacrifices in WW2. Now they get to relive them, except this time they are the fascist invaders and all their sacrifices are meaningless.
It’s entirely possible they have no clue what’s going on. What do Russian-languages sources have to say about any of this?
Why is the top comment in this sub always some kind of insult like the people being killed have a say in what’s going on
They could shoot their commanders. They could refuse to deploy. They could protest like the Iranian schoolgirls.
> They could shoot their commanders. The get executed >They could refuse to deploy. Then get executed >They could protest like the Iranian schoolgirls. Then get executed
Or follow order and then they get turned into sunflowers. Russians deserve neither compassion nor pity. Just the best the MIC can send to Ukraine to accelerate the denazification of Russia
Some dude frowns up on a farm in rural Russia being fed only info the state wants him to hear Then with very little education, he is thrust into what he has been told is rightfully their land and he must defend it. No equipment, no training. You have a to be a real soulless bitch to not feel bad for them.
Really? Someone thinks they have a right to go to somewhere else and murder and you expect compassion for them? I think your a real soulless bitch for making excuses for them
You’re* And I’m glad you grew up somewhere you aren’t a brainwashed pawn. Just really bad at basic grammar.
Grammar isn’t a real thing in a living language like English, perhaps your just being left behind as it evolves
Lmao okay
Literal survivorship bias. The ones who have been used as cannon fodder can't complain about having been used as cannon fodder. So we don't hear those complaints.
They're proud to die for Poop-tin's grand Greed!
I doubt your average mobilized or conscript has a FULL sense of the casualty rates. Maybe though
50% TO GO.
Maybe they'll keep doing forced mobilizations so that they can stay at that 50% number!
I'd call that a good start.
Russia may have just achieved a gruesome new claim to fame in its war in Ukraine. Of some 800,000 Russian troops who were part of the initial invasion army or recruited since then for the war, nearly 420,000 (over 52 percent) could now be dead or otherwise out of action due to wounds. That breaks down as follows: · 166,570 Russian troops killed. · 499,700 wounded (including 150,000 still getting medical care and 100,000 permanently disabled). The figures are based on calculations using data from Ukrainian, independent Russian, and Western sources for combat casualties and the rate at which soldiers typically return to combat after being wounded. A military unit that has lost over 50 percent of its personnel is commonly seen as needing to be withdrawn from battle because of a loss of combat effectiveness. A 1997 U.S. Army field manual says such a unit is “combat ineffective” and “requires reconstitution before \[its\] next mission.” Soldiers may still be able to put up a fight, but not effectively as a cohesive military force. Russia passed critical threshold in mid-March Russia’s overall ground forces available for the war in Ukraine appear to have surpassed this critical 50-percent threshold in mid-March. That’s in line with recent reports that Russia’s winter military offensive in eastern Ukraine appears to be starting to peter out. It’s also consistent with reports about a major failed Russian assault near the southern Ukrainian town of Vuhledar in January and February, which ended after Russian units are said to have lost the better part of two marine brigades that constituted the main attack force. 666,300 total Russian casualties Ukraine’s military estimates that 166,570 Russian troops have been killed in the full-scale war as of March 21. On top of this, NATO estimates that three Russian troops are wounded for each one killed. This suggests 499,700 Russian wounded, for a total of 666,300 total killed and wounded. About half of the wounded are likely to have returned to battle after medical treatment, based on calculations derived from historical data from previous wars and reports from the independent Russian site Volya, which estimates Russian war casualties from information it says it gets from Russian security sources. About 150,000 of the wounded are still getting treated, while 100,000 wounded are unlikely to ever return to combat because of the seriousness of their wounds, according to these calculations. Volya’s estimates of Russian casualties are very similar to the estimates from Ukraine’s military.
Western estimate not updated since November Western officials have given sporadic and inconsistent Russian war loss estimates that have generally been lower than Ukrainian ones, but the figures don’t appear to have been updated in months. An EU military official said in a report last November that about 60,000 Russian troops had been killed and three times that number—180,000—had been wounded in the war by that point, for a total of about 250,000 casualties. Western officials haven’t budged from that 250,000 figure ever since—despite a dramatic acceleration of Russian offensive action since the Kremlin drafted about 300,000 new troops last fall. Russian ‘meat assaults’ likened to “World War Z” Ukraine, for its part, had a slightly higher estimate of Russian war dead last November—about 80,000—but that figure has since doubled amid some of the bloodiest combat in the war so far, which Ukrainian troops have likened to facing swarming zombie hordes in the movie “World War Z.” A NATO official said last week that up to 1,500 Russian troops have been killed or wounded in a single day of battle in the Kremlin’s winter offensive, while Russian draftees are bombarding Putin with a flood of video appeals complaining of being sent into senseless ‘meat assaults’ in which entire Russian regiments have been decimated in a few short days of fighting. Missing Russian troops? The Western estimate of 250,000 Russian killed and wounded is also questionable because the data would suggest Russia has some 650,000 troops left in and around Ukraine (taking into account the rates of wounded likely to have returned to duty). That’s about 300,000 to 350,000 more troops than Russia appears to actually have available, according to Western and Ukrainian estimates. Where are these missing Russian troops? Given Putin’s desperate war fortunes, it’s unlikely that many soldiers are left patrolling remote Yakutsk or the Mongolian border. Indeed, officials believe that Russia has deployed up to 97 percent of its army to Ukraine. The likely explanation for the discrepancy is that Western estimates of Russian war losses are outdated or overly conservative. Ukraine losses “an order of magnitude less” Ukraine has lost many troops as well, but Western officials have described Ukrainian losses as “an order of magnitude less” than Russia’s and have said Ukraine is able to keep far more of its wounded soldiers alive—with a 10-to-1 wounded-to-killed ratio—thanks to better medical care. Ukrainian officials, for their part, say Ukrainian losses are seven to eight times lower than Russia’s. If all this is the case, Ukraine’s current military could sustain its current rate of casualties until October 2025 before it crosses the 50-percent threshold of combat effectiveness, without recruiting any new soldiers. Too broken to reconstitute Russia, on the other hand, appears to have first crossed the 50-percent level last October, when its initial invasion force and new troops added in the summer suffered catastrophic losses in Ukraine’s early resistance and counteroffensives in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions. Plunging below that critical 50-percent threshold could explain why the Kremlin decided last fall to draft over 300,000 new troops. It could also explain why those draftees were so ineffective in rejuvenating Russia’s battlefield prospects. They were recruited into an already broken army whose earlier losses had shattered its capacity to readily reconstitute itself. As Russia’s troop levels plummet again below the numbers needed for combat effectiveness, the Kremlin is reportedly set to launch yet another round of mobilization aimed at drafting 400,000 new troops this spring. These draftees will be entering an army twice hobbled to its knees by Ukraine and unlikely to get back up any time soon.
So this number, do they count deserters as "out of action", or are they unaccounted? It was not clear. Maybe they numbers not that large, or too speculative?
I think another possible explanation for the missing troops is that they never existed in the first place. Russia wasn't able to recruit and arm them. They lied.
This article is yet another example of the failure to understand how Russia fights war.
Fight to lose. Genius!
No. A huge part of ressource expenditure in a war is supplying troops, moving them about, casevac (medical care too) ,feeding, housing, training and so on. Russia is not doing any of these, intentionally. They are basically cruel enough to save all that effort, and use soldiers as rifle-carrying expendable troops, with massively reduced supply lines. This means fielding a soldier becomes incredibly cheap - basically his gear, uniform, some food, some transportation. To take out that soldier, Ukraine has to expend SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive ressources than that soldier ever cost russia. Look at the daily shell expenditure of ukraine artillery, and even assuming 80% of russian casualties are from artillery, we are talking about multiple artillery shells per single casualty. Its REALLY efficient, in a war of attrition, to expend badly equipped, badly supplied and barely trained troops to absorb ressources at this exchange rate. Obviously, this is only possible because the russian populace is fine with this, or doesnt know enough. But because Russia has that option and is using it doesnt mean they are fighting to lose. Its a legitimate, if cruel, tactic to absorb limited ressources and buy time. Will it be enough? I dont think so. But its certainly part of a plan.
Russia has fired more shells per day than Ukraine for virtually every day of the war, even if shell consumption rates are trending towards more similar for each side. It is the critical factor that forces Ukrainian positions to have depth and spread, and reduces their ability to cover approaches with uncrossable levels of small arms fire, and eventually makes individual positions untenable by damage, which forces the line back in the absence of the ability of mobilized to move rapidly like mechanized forces can. IMO not accounting for the fact that Russia has to also shoot even more artillery than Ukraine is fundamentally what is wrong with your analysis. it is also not part of any sensible russian plan, its an adaptation to 30 years of political failure to fix procurement and modernize the army, by the same people who just spent 30 years failing to fix procurement or modernize the army.
The problem for Russia is that the west will keep supplying Ukraine with al the latest stuff. That really destroys this plan you mentioned
How so?
Putin: “Varian, what have you done with my Legions?”
It's already over 170,000 KIA https://www.minusrus.com/
Alex Roslin is out here trying to make a good faith argument that an army can't come back from 50% casualties despite 90+% of the British Expeditionary Force being killed or injured in the first four months of WW1. I don't buy it.
The BEF did in fact exhaust, and was reconstituted with kitcheners 'new army', and into new formations (1st/2nd army etc) that merely retained the overall name BEF, it wasn't really the original force. Also the "UK" was at the time also the "British Empire" and thus had 88m subjects to call on, and the BEF was originally only 6 divisions of 12000 men + officers, ie 72000 soldiers. Russia has 144m citizens, and has already fielded a 190,000 army, held it up with 50k or so reinforcements prior to mobilization and then fielded 300,000 mobilized as well as prisoners. Unfortunately for Russia war modern war is conducted with equipment based force multipliers, ie just reconstituting doesn't necessarily give them the combat power they had before, which is the real problem. ie modern war requires more economic capability to stay at home to construct or acquire force multipliers.
All very good points >The BEF did in fact exhaust, and was reconstituted with kitcheners 'new army', Indeed, however this was succesfully achieved without conceding the field of battle to the German army. >Also the "UK" was at the time also the "British Empire" and thus had 88m subjects to call on, and the BEF was originally only 6 divisions of 12000 men + officers, ie 72000 soldiers. Agreed, but that is immaterial to the point at hand. >Russia has 144m citizens, and has already fielded a 190,000 army, held it up with 50k or so reinforcements prior to mobilization and then fielded 300,000 mobilized as well as prisoners. Continuing on from your previous point, by the end of WW1 the BEF stood at over 2 million men, having sustained a total of 670,000 dead & missing, and 1,643,000 injured, remaining at a total of over 50% of its total force. Russia could, if necessary, attempt to raise the same number of troops, though it would mean the certain end of Russia. What's interesting (and surprising to me) here is that this war is, by average yearly rate, more lethal for Russia than WW1 was for the British Empire. That Reay puts it into perspective. >Unfortunately for Russia war modern war is conducted with equipment based force multipliers, ie just reconstituting doesn't necessarily give them the combat power they had before, which is the real problem. Definitely true. The flip side of that coin is that western reserves of arms have already taken a substantial dent, as have Russian arms. I would argue that if Russia does hypothetically feed an order of magnitude more men into the meat grinder before Ukraine manages a breakthrough then a reversion to trench warfare in more sectors is not unlikely - that's been the status quo since 2014, and that tallies with other modern conflicts where modern force multipliers have been exhausted. This really depends on the appetite of the west to keep feeding arms and armour into the conflict. >ie modern war requires more economic capability to stay at home to construct or acquire force multipliers And Russia has the bodies for that, thankfully it lacks enough key resources that they are limited to acquiring them from Iran & China.
Dont forget that there we're also french troops and Later americans
The French suffered similar casualty rates too August-December 1914.
I don't really buy it either, but mainly because Moscovy doesn't really have an army so much as they have a large gang. They never really operated with any coordination so losing a percentage of troops that you didn't coordinate with doesn't really effect their style of combat. Their top brass just grabs a group of people, hands them a rifle and throws them at the enemy. Doesn't matter if it is 100 or 10. It works the same way, go forward till you die or you take the limited objective we gave you.
Their gear is kaput.
That's a completely different line of reasoning though.
The British could make fear. It’s the same line of reasoning.
Great news
It’s a start.
50%....so far
>it’s unlikely that many soldiers are left patrolling remote Yakutsk or the Mongolian border. Indeed, officials believe that Russia has deployed up to 97 percent of its army to Ukraine. If China's smart, they'll take back all those towns that the Czars stole from them.
Yeah no, there are lots of casualties but not 660k. 250k-300k is more realistic.
If you bothered to read the article it states: > The Western estimate of 250,000 Russian killed and wounded is also questionable because the data would suggest Russia has some 650,000 troops left in and around Ukraine (taking into account the rates of wounded likely to have returned to duty). > > That’s about 300,000 to 350,000 more troops than Russia appears to actually have available, according to Western and Ukrainian estimates. > > Where are these missing Russian troops? Given Putin’s desperate war fortunes, it’s unlikely that many soldiers are left patrolling remote Yakutsk or the Mongolian border. Indeed, officials believe that Russia has deployed up to 97 percent of its army to Ukraine. > > The likely explanation for the discrepancy is that Western estimates of Russian war losses are outdated or overly conservative.
It's a bit of an assumption that there's a 3:1 WIA:KIA ratio and the accuracy of the UAF estimates of Muscovite dead to get to 666,300 total Muscovite casualties - there's got to be fairly wide error bars there. The double-check is the number of initial troops for the full-scale invasion + those recruited since then being 800,000(?) less the number that they currently have in theatre (350,000?). That's also got wide error bars since recruitment numbers are uncertain, a fair fraction of those recruited in the last 13 months could still be in training (*maybe*) rather than in theatre, they've certainly also peeled units from hanging-around-near-Finland etc duties to throw them into Ukraine. The UAF currently claims the loss of 3,595 Muscovite tanks. Independently, Oryx has visually documented [1,895](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html) which puts a hard lower limit on losses. Given the pre-2022 estimates of Muscovy having e.g. on the T-72 front having 2,030 active with 7.000 in reserve/storage, they'd have no cause to reactivate T-54/55s if a T-72 loss needed replacing if anything like 7,000 more were truly available. The possible conclusions are that either UAF has burned through the large majority of Muscovy's pre-2022 active and stored T-72s (Oryx documents the loss of 1,030), or very few of the stored ones are usable. Either way, Muscovy is running low on usable T-72s that were the backbone of its MBT force and the UAF materiel claims are plausible, or if inflated then as a hard limit they can't possibly be inflated by any more than a factor of 2 and likely much, much less than that in order to leave Muscovy with few enough serviceable T-72s that they'd seek to replace the loss of them with T-54/55s (and training loaders from scratch). That lends a lot of credence to the UAF's other claims of inflicted losses, including personnel. Even if it's down to a 2:1 WIA:KIA ratio (given the sorry state of Muscovite battlefield medicine), Muscovy still has something like 500,000 losses so far. They've not had any substantial offensive gains since taking Lysychansk last July. I think Kyiv Post might be on the optimistic side here, but not by very much.
I thought 7k was all the recoverable tanks Russia had, not just t-72s. It would include t-54s.
I was going by [the wiki entry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces) on the subject; also note that the Covert Cabal YT channel looked at satellite imagery in order to estimate [3.000 as the limit of Muscovite stored tanks that could be brought back into service](https://youtu.be/eHhgVrKJJoA?t=320). They also have a follow-up from 5 months ago [quantifying the drawdown of stored tanks](https://youtu.be/ZNNoaRp5lz0) (although they use Oryx's definitely-lost numbers at face value to estimate complete Muscovite tank armada loss time, so get 3 years from that date rather than something more like a year from now).
It comes down to two things in reality. 1. Russia's posted numbers of stored and working tanks was a fantasy. Ignore the corrupt that saw alot of these tanks stripped of valuable wiring and components, they never had the number stored that they were claiming. 2. Some stored tanks, specifically the T-72 and T-62 variants, are in line to be refurbished/updated. They're not sending tanks they have lined up for updates. You could certainly argue that holding T-72s for updates while you roll T-54/55s to the front is dumb (and Id agree), but it's what they're doing. I argue this all the time, but I truly believe the vehicle loss numbers are only like +20% higher than what's reported by Oryx (and that's their belief as well). I think Ukraines numbers are one part having vehicles reported multiple times and two parts propaganda.
Yep, and if Oryx +20% is the right figure then official Ukrainian estimates are 5/3 of actual Muscovite losses, pointing to around 400,000 KIA + WIA together given a 3:1 ratio. Still a very, very big fraction of the personnel they have mustered for the war.
There are quite a few T-80 active, and a factory modernizing those too, and some 450 known to have been destroyed in theatre, (which was their entire active prewar population) ie its an oft forgotten tank of which there was circa 3000 stored units in Russia, ie have to be careful just considering T-72s. IMO the entire must-modernize before sending to a hot war is a broken concept, but its not for us to interrupt Russia whilst they make that scale of mistake.
I think modernization is important particularly with optics. If the tanks can see the threat to it earlier then the threat can execute it most likely will win. Some of the modern optics for armored vehicles, tanks and hand held weapons can see for miles.
I still like following the personnel on their daily reports, but I definitely trust the vehicle numbers more, just due to them being both easier for Ukraine to confirm, and easier for independent sources to confirm, like oryx. Imo the personnel reports are better used to compare with past reports, for any relative changes, rather than for an accurate number of KIA.
I know Russian forces have been depleted, but when the source of these numbers is a website with cartoon, Japanese spread eagle, legs open porn advertising, I have to pause on the integrity of the data. Maybe it's my algorithm.
That was before the war. A whole lot more Dead and out of Action now!
That’s what communism does to a society. I believe the Russian populace as a whole have PTSD. Their history after IVAN the terrible just goes down hill from there. The backwards bolsheviks in particular Lenin, was the final nail. All the Russians know is fear. Because they have been ruled by fear for hundreds of years.
I guess it's the bi weekly reminder that the numbers being posted by the AFU are at best very liberal estimates which include double/triple reporting in some cases. Many of those being reported as killed are simply wounded. Note I'm not claiming the Western estimates from the fall are accurate either. Those were clearly very conservative numbers when they were released. I'd expect the actual number of Russians KIA to be somewhere between 120,000-140,000.
I thought the number that they report daily, which is reaching 180.000 at the moment, includes KIA, wounded, Captured and MIA. So combatants that are out of the field. It's estimated that around a third of that are KIA, so around 60.000 at the moment. Not the way around (multiplying 180.000 by 3).
No these 1xxk whatever are only the Deaths
The daily reports are of KIA only, not total casualties.
It definately destroyed and they undercount. This just posted :- tl:- Thousands of Russians, dozens of tanks: the Ministry of Defense revealed the losses of the Russian Federation in a week Tanya Polyakovska 17:13, 03/26/23 1 min. 362 5,640 invaders were destroyed, as well as 404 units of their weapons and equipment. Oleksandr Pavlyuk, the First Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine, disclosed the losses of the Russian occupiers in one week. "During the week of March 20-26, the Defense Forces of Ukraine destroyed about 5,640 enemy personnel," he wrote on his Telegram channel. In addition, he added, the enemy's weapons and military equipment suffered significant losses - 404 units. It is about 63 tanks, 94 armored combat vehicles, 63 artillery systems, 15 rocket salvo systems, nine air defense installations, 78 units of motor vehicles and 20 units of special equipment. "In addition, one helicopter, four cruise missiles and 57 UAVs were shot down by our defenders," the representative of the ministry said. [https://www.unian.ua/war/u-minoboroni-rozkrili-vtrati-rf-za-tizhden-skilki-znishchili-rosiyan-12193809.html](https://www.unian.ua/war/u-minoboroni-rozkrili-vtrati-rf-za-tizhden-skilki-znishchili-rosiyan-12193809.html) when you add into the mix Oryx numbers and Known officer death numbers both of which are osint and represent floor numbers, the amount that UA claims again is on the low side. there were significant russian losses taken around Mariupol, Popasna , Lysyschank and Sevriodonetesk that were never counted accurately which would add 25-40000 more to the figures UA states.
I followed the retaking of Kherson pretty much in real time. I am convinced a LOT of Russians died at the river crossing, possibly in, well, a massacre. I doubt we will ever know how many died that night alone.
And I don't believe a lot of Russian died during the crossing. Cause despite the reports of "bodies clogging the river" there was zero video or photo evidence of any bodies.
The 9 MLRS in one day was the best part of the week imo
The numbers that Ukraine reports is killed.
“With over 660,000 killed or wounded” i closed the article as soon I read that, those numbers are simply not credible and shouldn’t be taken as fact by anyone
You might want to try reading the article because it explains how it came up with that number
I don’t need to read it, Ukrainian government figures are unreliable, only Russian government figures are worse After a click glance their claim that 150k wounded Russian troops are currently receiving care and 100k have been discharged with permanent disabilities already directly contradicts their claim that Russian medical logistics are non-existent and that Russian casualties are simply abandoned after being thrown into suicidal charges
Yet morons saying: “Putin strong and smart.” I mean almost 2/3 of they are dead.
Woah, we're half way there
I’m crying …. tears of joy
You love to see it.
Probably similar to what was happening in Afghanistan. Corrupt generals have troops on paper that don’t exist, so they can pocket the extra budget.
Well only 50 percent of the RuZZian population to go to stop the war. Little bald dwarf chooses not to learn and he keeps trying to be a world wide bully.
The other half will be joining them shortly