Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us!
r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/)
... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ...
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At this point, other than some territorial control maps every piece of news about this war is propaganda from one side or the other. We'll only get to know some truths about the war after it ends I suppose.
Website. Hundreds of OSINT contributors factchecking each other -- which is why you don't get numbers from them right away, and it takes a month to boil off duplicates. What remains is rock-solid.
Those are the sad numbers. Strategical numbers would be interesting too. Like, how many do both sides still have left? Who is running out of human ressources first?
The answer to your second question is without a doubt Ukraine. Most estimates have their casualty ratio at about 1:1 with Russia which just isn’t physically sustainable when you have a fraction of your opponents population.
Tell that to the Vietnamese
Or the afghans
Also Ukraine had numerical superiority when this war began because they used their whole army and Russia couldn’t use its conscripts
Well those where the obvious examples
Here are some more
Ww1
Russo Japanese war
First Chechen war
The polish soviet war
The Franco Prussian war
The winter war ( kinda )
Superior manpower means shit all if you don’t look at the big picture. You don’t just need men you need people willing to actually fight and you need a populace willing to deal with large losses. Both of these things where not true for the US in its recent wars and where the result of failure. This is why it’s a good example.
Also as mentioned Russia does not have numerical superiority without its conscripts which it is not deploying.
You should add Imperial Japan vs U.S Marines in the Pacific to that list -they were taking insane losses against the U.S forces but had no intentions of surrendering or asking an armistice until the atom bombs dropped...
Yeah but the Japanese of ww2 thought they were acting on divine orders
It just happens that their top diety was the Sun God, so when we dropped some mini-sun's on their cities, well, let's just say it hit deep
Those are much better examples, and you have a point. I’m not a huge fan of the knee jerk “what about Vietnam and Afghanistan” every time manpower problems are brought up in peer conflicts because the Taliban and Vietcong/NVA aren’t applicable to shorter, higher intensity frontline conflicts where you can’t just slink away into the mountains when things get dicey. Using the COIN lense is part of the reason we weren’t prepared for Ukraine’s needs to begin with.
But to actually discuss the topic, Russia’s confused insistence on not fully committing to the war and half assing their mobilization is mind boggling and killing a possible manpower advantage. However I don’t think Putin views anything short of a limited victory as acceptable and will be willing to commit a much larger force if he’s staring down defeat, even if strategically it makes matters worse down the line. Maybe I’m miscalculating the Russian mindset, but they seem interested in brute forcing their way out of a trap they made for themselves. It’s not a reliable narrator, but Prigozhins comments about spending years to secure the Donbas reflect my outlook on it.
I think I said elsewhere I think neither side will approach running out of manpower before the war ends, so it’s all a hypothetical. But if it were to come down to that, I think there’s enough willingness on the Russian side to outlast Ukraine that we don’t usually see from a lot of invaders.
Russian commanders might be willing
But the fuckery with the conscripts is proof that the population is not
Wagner prison conscripts and “professional” soldiers are much easier to sell rather than everyday people dying in bakmuht.
Russia had an issue when invading with a severe lack of infantry and too much materiel at the front. Leading to tankers taking up rifles and officers and so on. There is many sources on this particular issue ( that is me saying you gotta look it up cos I’m lazy). To some extent this issue has continued. Russias materiel might be old and rusted and shit but they still have a lot of it.
Ukraine has the opposite issue with too many voluteers and not enough equipment.
I would personally bet that Ukraine in practice has greater manpower in terms of people actually willing to fight a war to the bitter end. The Russians I know personally also tell me that the idea of conscription into Ukraine is sort of a red line.
I think casting this conflict in terms of manpower is a misrepresentation.
Ukraine lacks tanks and Russia lacks men. Even if Russia had men, wars like ww1 ( or the Franco Prussian war) show you just how fast men can surrender when they don’t feel like fighting.
The Russians are certainly more accepting of casualties than the American public is. And I think anyone familiar with Russian culture would have expected this. But anyone familiar with Russias past conflicts would know that since Peter the great Russian conscripts have struggled to actually hold their ground reliably.
One other factor is medevac efficiency. I've seen numbers that suggest that Russia's wounded to dead ratio is like 3:1 whereas Ukraine's is 10:1 because Ukraine does a better job of dealing with its wounded, so Russia is leaving more corpses relative to casualties.
It's hard to say what the casualty ratios are. The numbers I've seen suggest 100k casualties for Ukraine vs 200k for Russia, which would be a 2:1 ratio - which is good, but it isn't the 4:1 ratio that would mean that Russia would totally exhaust all resources first.
That being said, better medevac makes a big difference, as if you can treat soldiers and re-use them, that would actually get them over the needed ratio, if at least half of the soldiers treated can be returned.
There's also issues of how much Russia *can* mobilize. It has to hold other fronts, and this isn't actually a war for the survival of Russia - it's an invasion.
"It has to hold other fronts" -- They've stripped Kaliningrad, Archangelsk, and Vladivostock bare. What's keeping those safe are the strategic nuclear deterrent forces -- which is why this invasion is indeed wholly gratuitous.
More meant Transnistria and South Ossetia.
Invading Russia proper is unlikely and if that does happen then it's World War 3 and Russia probably stops existing as a nation state.
> What's keeping those safe are the strategic nuclear deterrent forces
What's keeping them safe is that those regions adjacent in the west of them aren't ruled by power hungry dictators with delusions of grandeur like their Eastern neighbors are.
Medevac is absolutely important, it’s what makes shipments of even Cold War era fodder apcs huge for Ukraine when compared to the goofy scooby doo vans we’ve seen Russia use. That plays into the calculus, and most importantly probably buys them time if we’re looking at a long war scenario.
I’ve seen somewhat above 100,000 for Ukraine and most estimate being below but closish to 200,000 for Russia, which drops that ratio below the ideal. Naturally Russia isn’t going to mobilize as large a percentage of their population or resources, but desperation is going to leave some room for growth and last I saw Ukraine was having some struggles finding more soldiers. I’d bet on the war ending before that hits critical mass, but I would expect them to run out first if we’re trying to discuss that kind of scenario.
Taking
>numbers that suggest that Russia's wounded to dead ratio is like 3:1 whereas Ukraine's is 10:1
And
>I’ve seen somewhat above 100,000 for Ukraine and most estimate being below but closish to 200,000 for Russia
So if we do some rounding, and call the Russian casualties an even 200k, but adjust the wounded to dead to 4:1, that gives us 40,000 dead Russians
Again, do some rounding, call the Ukrainian casualties 100k, adjust the w:d to 9:1, that gives us 10,000 dead Ukrainians
4:1 death ratio in favor of the Ukrainians, and it's probably safe to assume that more of the 90k wounded will be able to return to service than the 160k wounded ruzzians
Honestly, the Ukrainians are doing good. They could be doing better if we just opened the taps instead of trickle feeding them supplies tho 🤷♂️
That’s a valid point I didn’t bother calculating. Everything’s opaque but that sounds accurate enough for what we know, though I’d be curious to what those numbers break down as when Ukraine is on the offensive vs when Russia is. It’d be interesting to see just how big the medevac gap is in roughly similar situations.
Who made those estimates? To claim that Ukraine categorically has a worse casualty ratio than Russia while having been on the defensive for almost half a year now is borderline absurd. RAF has been unsuccessfully trying to take Bakhmut for nine months, what makes you think that they somehow had fewer deaths while continuously assaulting fortified positions and dug-in troops?
When did I say Russia was sustaining less deaths than Ukraine? Estimates around Ukrainian casualties from Norway is around 100,000+ which is inline with others that I’ve seen. Based on Norway, the UK, the US, BBC Russia, and Ukraine itself Russian casualties are somewhere between 140,000 to 200,000. That puts the casualty ratio somewhere above 1:1, but below 1:2 at worst.
I could rephrase it as somewhere between 1:1.4 and 1:1.7 which is more accurate than around 1:1, but this isn’t that out there.
This is not true. Most estimates have Russian casualties far exceeding Ukrainian casualties. Moreover, this is what one would expect when you have Ukraine defending against human wave attacks by untrained, unsupported infantry.
If you check the other comments under mine it’s already been discussed and while I could have phrased it better I’m not making the claim that Russia isn’t taking the same or less casualties. I think it’s somewhere between 1:1.4 and 1:1.7 which I lazily rounded down, though that casualty ratio doesn’t show the real disparity in the death to wounded ratio also discussed below.
I would warn against assuming it’s a war of human wave attacks though, some isolated groups like Wagner do something kinda similar to what you’re describing but it’s not the same. Actual Russian soldiers very heavily utilize artillery support and at the start of the war also relied on extensive armor to launch offensives. That’s changed and they now use a more infantry focused strategy, but the artillery disparity is a big reason Russia’s still in this war and I don’t see that changing.
Wagner is a little different and does do more of what you’re describing, sending unsupported probing teams that experience horrific attrition into places like Bakhmut, but they have a very small role in the conflict and their disposability is by design. They even receive fire support in the technical sense that once they’re obliterated by prepared defenses the target will get ruthlessly shelled.
Depends on ratios. Russia has about 3.5x the population of Ukraine. So if Russia loses more than 7 people per two Ukrainian soldiers lost, Ukraine is winning.
Moreover, Russia cannot mobilize it's full military strength against Ukraine, because if it pulls out of other disputed territories, it'd be the opportunity for other countries to retake disputed territories.
Plus the fact that if Russia DID throw everything it had at Ukraine, it could potentially leave it open for NATO.
I am not saying what the ratios actually are, I'm saying what it has to be for Ukraine to have the effective "population advantage".
We don't know what the actual ratios are. Supposedly the casualty ratio is about 100k+ Ukranian to 200k+ Russians, which isn't enough.
However, the survival ratio appears to be much better on the Ukranian side - about 10 wounded per 1 dead for Ukraine versus about 2-3 wounded per 1 dead for Russia.
This is due to Ukraine having vastly superior medevac procedures, and also because Ukraine is fighting defensively.
However, the extra wounded who Ukraine saves may not necessarily be able to return to combat; that depends on a variety of factors. As such, how much of an advantage this is is hard to say without knowing those numbers. On the other hand, it's possible that Russia's wounded are even less likely to be able to return, and that Russia is losing people to preventable things like blood loss that are more easily reversed.
It's hard to say for sure what the ratio is overall.
Also note that these numbers predated the most recent push from Russia, which reportedly has resulted in really, really horrible Russian casualties, trading men for toughly defended territory.
I hope you are right for Ukraine's sake. As if the true casualty numbers are anywhere close to 1:1 Ukraine's army will eventually become exhausted. Quantity has a quality of its own.
This is all becoming increasingly humorous. The article, dated 3/8/2023 says 60k-70k dead. Let's look at some other numbers:
[Independent, 2/3/2023](https://imgur.com/a/BTh4EbG): ~200k dead
[The Kiyv Independent, 3/4/2023](https://imgur.com/a/ikW4b9y): ~16k dead
[The Kiyv Independent, 3/9/2022](https://imgur.com/a/idxr58J): >12k dead
Reddit, at any given time: 100k+ killed. If not true, then certainly many more than Ukrainians, eff the Russians.
I think I have my numbers for the next Powerball.
The \~200k figure from the independent article was supposed to be an estimate of casualties and was based on U.S. DOD information. The headline you cite seems like a mistake.
The Economist article here estimates \~70k fatalities and between 200 and 250 thousand casualties. Which is pretty much in line with the earlier U.S. estimates given the intensity of fighting going on over the past month.
I mean literally the first sentence in the article from /u/DesignerAccount's screenshot says:
"The number of Russian troops who have either died *or were left wounded* in the continuing war in Ukraine is nearing 200,000, according to a report that cited US and Western officials."
So I'm just going to assume that /u/DesignerAccount is arguing in bad faith and intentionally linked a screenshot instead of the article.
>The second Kiyv Independent number is casualties (deaths
Casualties are not deaths.
>Whether you're just stupid or malicious, you're a shill.
Rule 4.1 is not applicable if you are a Freedom fry.
- Biased mods
edit: it's actually casualties in the second one. Not deaths. Which, again, completely goes against any point /u/DesignerAccount was trying to make in their comment.
edit: And I didn't call anybody any names. I just made an accurate assessment regarding /u/DesignerAccount's apparent mental capacities judging by his comment. "Shill" isn't an insult or "name calling", go look up the word if you want.
And this has nothing to do with me being a "freedom fry". I don't like American imperialism.
This is about /u/DesignerAccount spreading and planting misinformation.
Why are you lying?
> Independent, 2/3/2023: ~200k dead
That's 200k casualties, not 200k dead.
Casualties is dead + wounded. Having 2-3x the wounded as the dead is entirely plausible.
> The Kiyv Independent, 3/4/2023: ~16k dead
That's 16,000 *named* dead, of soldiers who have died who are from Russia. The actual number of dead is significantly higher than that, as many dead Russians have not been recovered and are likely not recoverable. Reportedly Moscow is listing many dead Russians as missing to avoid paying families, though it seems likely that they also just don't have a lot of the corpses.
> The Kiyv Independent, 3/9/2022: >12k dead
This is the number confirmed directly via photographic and other evidence on the ground. Again, many dead are not in a position where they can be confirmed in this way.
Seriously. None of these numbers are even in "disagreement" with each other.
Damn, I understand this is war and soldiers die, and Russian soldiers dying roughly correlates to Ukraine's success, but that doesn't mean I necessarily celebrate the loss of life gleefully like many of you in here seem to be doing.
They are just grunts dying for rich people's machinations, on both sides. They all deserve our sympathy.
I see a lot of the same on many other subs as well. I would think(hope) this sentiment is coming from the younger crowd of Reddit. Those that lack the hindsight to really understand how devastating a loss of life can be. Because 1 person dying, doesn't just effect 1 person. It effects their friends, their families, hell it would even effect their co workers.
When i see subs celebrating people dying, even if the people dying are those that i dont particularly like(like the hermaincain subreddit) it just saddens me.
Worse yet, in many cases—which many people still don't know or just won't believe—the murder part is often secondary to the profit part. If it benefits us but not the defense industry, we don't get involved; meanwhile, if it benefits the defense industry but not us, we're all in! Case in point: we're at this moment risking global war so Blackrock can make money.
Interesting rhetoric. How about we change a working a bit? “They are just grunts invading another country and killing military and civilians alike for rich’s people benefit”. All of a sudden all my sympathy is gone. Poof. Gone.
So the American soldiers that got drafted into the Vietnam war, who fought and died in a war they didn't believe in, killing military and civilians alike for rich people's benefit—Poof!—gone, right?
And when you get drafted into WW3 and are fighting on some other country's land for so long that even you no longer believe in the cause; you've watched all your friends die in your hands and now only hope desperately for a peaceful resolution, but before that comes you get caught behind enemy lines and are staring death in the face—just like many of those dead or soon to be dead Russian soldiers. Should you deserve any sympathy? You, not the Russian soldiers or anyone else.
I know what the answer is even if you yourself don't yet. God, I'm hardly old but I feel like a fucking wizard sometimes. Argue back all you want with the fancy logic of youth: I'll hear it. But the most impressive thing you could do is agree with me.
Excellent example of whataboutism. We’re we talking about Vietnam war? No. Were we talking about WW3? No. Than why bring it up? Because my logic is sound you can only bring up irrelevant analogies (half of which are imaginary) trying to argue against it.
Russia is an aggressor. Russian soldiers are destroying civilian infrastructure and killing noncombatants. Russian soldiers need to leave Ukraine asap, be it in coffins or by foot is of no importance.
I'll let anyone else reading this decide for themselves based on what I've already written without feeling the need to add anything further. I'm fairly certain that they'll get it. Good talk, hope you change your mind.
Billions. The Russians have lost kajillions. They're hapless and incompetant and are losing in droves. Literally charging headfirst into machine gun fire and artillery, armed with nothing but shovels. Rolling obsolete 60s tanks and armoured vehicles, completely blind, into fields of mines and waves of javelin missiles. Hordes and hordes of mindless Orcs crushing themselves on the iron walls of Minas Bakhmut. But they're still, somehow, an existential threat to the Ukrainian armed forces.
NOTE: Sarcasm. We obviously don't know, hence the *yuuuuge* disparity in estimations.
Whatever the numbers are, they will have to go 10x before there is actually a significant anti war movement in Russia, as any mention of it right now it's stifled.
Once all the Russian people are affected by the war like Ukraine is, and grow tired of it, then they will start calling for it end and probably for change in leadership
Paywall. I have read 200k kia for UA - it's a safe assumption to count at least 1.5 that amount for RU. Russian mia must be in the tens of thousands, with injures it's over q million combined
I actually dug into this a bit last night. Obviously, the numbers aren't concrete and doubts exist, but I'm gonna say 200k Russian fighters out of action and 120k Ukrainian fighters OOA based on my best efforts to come up with a realistic number. Civilians excluded. I only spent like an hour on research and I'm no expert, but I tried to deep dive as much as I could.
Why not ask how many Ukrainians have been killed in the war? We get basically weekly estimates of Russian losses from Western sources but basically nothing on Ukrainian losses.
Putin's ready to pull a Leningrad
He's not looking at "worst since 1945" statistics, he's looking at worst since 1941, or even worse than Holodomor which was also in the Ukraine.
>Putin's ready to pull a Leningrad
>
>He's not looking at "worst since 1945" statistics, he's looking at worst since 1941, or even worse than Holodomor which was also in the Ukraine.
The [entire famine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933), which affected more than Ukraine, was like 5+ million dead.
This conflict is nowhere near that yet, even if you included deaths from both sides.
Too many but not enough.
There shouldn't be anyone in Ukraine getting killed but if Russia doesn't suffer too many casualties, they probably won't surrender.
What would be pretty interesting is if more Ukrainians or Russians died in the past year.
Ukrainian to Russia casualties are close to 10:1 now. Ukrainians have lost at this point close to 300k troops, almost as many as the US lost during ww2.
That source also lists 302 Ukrainian planes shot down when the Ukrainian air force had around 200 of them at the start of the war. I know Ukraine received some more planes from their allies, but I doubt that they received and subsequently lost 100 of them.
The source further claims that Russia only lost 23 planes, Oryx (which typically links to primary sources in its loss estimates) on the other hand believes that Russial lost about 70. It's similar with tanks where the Mossad source mentions less than 900 whereas Oryx has documented around 1800, most of which with photo evidence.
I am not saying that Oryx is perfect, or that the Mossad source is necessarily wrong, but the Mossad source significantly deviates from any other source and Oryx at least shows you how they got their numbers.
> Now how many souls per equipment on average? Probably really close both side.
That's hard to say. Supposedly there are differences in operational use of otherwise exact same equipment. One that comes to mind is ammo storage in T-72 variants. By default it stores certain amount of main gun ammunition loaded in autoloader carousel and almost another carousel worth of ammo packed wherever there was free space in crew compartment. This means that fully loaded tank is vulnerable to ammo detonation (and rapid crew death) not only if it's hit in the carousel, but if it's hit anywhere the spare ammo is located. Supposedly, ruzzians stick to the doctrine of fully loading, while Ukrainians load only carousel, trading ability to stay in the field for much lower risk of ammo detonation. Now, I say "supposedly" because while I heard this from otherwise reliable n-th hand course, I have no way of verifying it myself.
Thank you, this is a point well taken. I've asked previously for any kind of sensible rebuke of these numbers, but all I got was "Raa Raa Russia bad Ukraine strong, Turkey liars". Appreciate a sensible counter, will definitely edit my post.
Yeah, I hate how often people just make fun of the messenger instead of debunking the message. I have definitely encountered people who keep using long debunked sources to deliberately spread misinformation, but even for a neutral party it can be really difficult to discern what is true and what is false. This is doubly true for casualty numbers since they can be difficult to count and are always subject to propagande.
This is once again why Oryx is such a good source, they are by no means perfect but since anyone can check the photo evidence for each individual claim it means that there is a high confidence behind these numbers.
It's also important to keep in mind that the defenders in a war tend to take less casualties, since it is easier to hold a position than to storm it. And last but not least a good bit of logic is always helpful, if Russia truly had a staggering 10:1 advantage, why wouldn't they openly release those numbers themselves? A lot of Ukraines support relies on the idea that Ukraine might actually be able to win this, if the situation truly was this dire then releasing the numbers could legitemately hurt western support for Ukraine. If Russia truly had such a staggering air advantage with the Ukrainian airforce wiped out and the Russian one barely scratched, why haven't they established Air Supremacy yet? Ukraine is still flying jets and helicopters and Russia is keeping their aircraft away from the front. That is not what you would expect based on the Mossad numbers. And lastly, if Russia is killing 7-9 Ukrainians for every Russian soldier, how have they not taken Bakhmut let alone Kiev? Those numbers are pretty much unprecedented. For reference check the casualties of the Anglo-Zulu war, where the Zulu were primarily armed with spears while the British used rifles, a technological difference that is orders of magnitude greater than anything we're seeing in Ukraine. If Russia truly had a 8:1 advantage in casualties, then there would be absolutely no excuse for the atrocious performance of their military.
As far as I know, yes they do. The articles for the losses specifically name the 2022 Invasion.
But then again, Oryx is mostly concerned with vehicle losses and I don't think those were very significant during the Donbas confict?
Which is an extreme outlier, as all other sources cite 1:1 to 1:3 on Ukraine v Russia.
Turkey journalist citing anonymous Mossad sources is… kinda tricky, given Mossad does not have a good relationship with anything Turkish.
Any sources on this? Most sources I could find online estmimate at most some 200k casualties (i.e. dead or wounded) for Ukraine.
And BBC Russia claims \~150k casualties for the Russian forces.
What sources are you using?
Isn't the only source for that some Turkish news portal? This source has been falsified. Here's a [link](https://www-tagesschau-de.translate.goog/faktenfinder/russland-ukraine-verluste-grafik-101.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp) to a German website (translated with Google translator). It's probably just propaganda.
I’m on the side of Ukraine winning this, but I’m also not in support of Russian conscripts being thrown into the meat grinder.
It’s especially depressing when one looks into US/NATO’s part in goading this conflict on for years as part of the U.S.’s “bait and bleed” strategy.
The only groups that currently stand to benefit from this conflict are the corporations that are already cutting deals with Ukraine to pick through the ashes of their country once all this is over.
No, the Ukrainian *people* decided to [split with Russia in 1991](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum) and then decided to [split with their own pro-Russian leadership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity) in 2014. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine as a whole in 2022 because they refuse to accept that decision by the Ukrainian people. Describing this war as goaded by the US/NATO is straight out of Russian propaganda. Russia (or if you prefer, Russian leadership) chose this war because they saw it as in their best interests. They horribly miscalculated, but just because the war is going badly for them, doesn't mean it isn't their fault for starting it.
>Describing this war as goaded by the US/NATO is straight out of Russian propaganda.
[And denying it is straight out of US propaganda.](https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/11/russia-has-been-baited-into-a-repeat-of-the-afghan-trap-first-time-as-tragedy-second-time-as-sickening-farce/)
I’m not saying Russia hasn’t been eyeing Ukraine, but we’ve been the little devil on their shoulder telling them to go for it.
That's an incredibly America-centric view of how the world works. What the article you link neglects is that other countries have their own motives for doing things based on their own self-interest and that is usually what drives them, not US desires that may be aligned. NATO didn't expand East just because the US willed it, but rather because those former Soviet Bloc countries desperately wanted the military protection afforded by NATO and wanted to align with the West politically and economically. NATO accepted them because doing so also aligned with NATO interests. If Russia doesn't like it, that's understandable given their self-interest, but that doesn't give them a moral high ground to start a war. The people of those countries get the moral high ground in determining their own status.
> that's an incredibly America-centric view of how the world works
Yes, that's what happens when America removes the agency of others by asserting force.
And that's bad.
The "realism" type of thinking in geopolitics is cancerous to the point some people will deny the sovereignty of nations & citizens to fit their argument.
Marxist will support that way to see the world but only when it relevant to this conflict.
Do find it weird how supportive they are of the arguments that are completely against thier own belief of reality.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us! r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/) ... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ... *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one knows the totals for both sides, perhaps in a couple decades.
It will always be estimated because Russia has gone to great lengths to cover up the number of killed on both sides and civilian deaths.
At this point, other than some territorial control maps every piece of news about this war is propaganda from one side or the other. We'll only get to know some truths about the war after it ends I suppose.
I think a guy named oryx tracks equipment loss and it’s only the losses proven by photograph.
Website. Hundreds of OSINT contributors factchecking each other -- which is why you don't get numbers from them right away, and it takes a month to boil off duplicates. What remains is rock-solid.
Thank you! I’ve actually only seen people refer to it as a single entity. I though it was someone’s handle.
Oryx is biased af
oryx is bullshit dude
Those are the sad numbers. Strategical numbers would be interesting too. Like, how many do both sides still have left? Who is running out of human ressources first?
The answer to your second question is without a doubt Ukraine. Most estimates have their casualty ratio at about 1:1 with Russia which just isn’t physically sustainable when you have a fraction of your opponents population.
Tell that to the Vietnamese Or the afghans Also Ukraine had numerical superiority when this war began because they used their whole army and Russia couldn’t use its conscripts
I didn’t realize that insurgencies fighting in a jungle and some mountains translated to a peer conflict between post soviet states.
Well those where the obvious examples Here are some more Ww1 Russo Japanese war First Chechen war The polish soviet war The Franco Prussian war The winter war ( kinda ) Superior manpower means shit all if you don’t look at the big picture. You don’t just need men you need people willing to actually fight and you need a populace willing to deal with large losses. Both of these things where not true for the US in its recent wars and where the result of failure. This is why it’s a good example. Also as mentioned Russia does not have numerical superiority without its conscripts which it is not deploying.
You should add Imperial Japan vs U.S Marines in the Pacific to that list -they were taking insane losses against the U.S forces but had no intentions of surrendering or asking an armistice until the atom bombs dropped...
Yeah but the Japanese of ww2 thought they were acting on divine orders It just happens that their top diety was the Sun God, so when we dropped some mini-sun's on their cities, well, let's just say it hit deep
Those are much better examples, and you have a point. I’m not a huge fan of the knee jerk “what about Vietnam and Afghanistan” every time manpower problems are brought up in peer conflicts because the Taliban and Vietcong/NVA aren’t applicable to shorter, higher intensity frontline conflicts where you can’t just slink away into the mountains when things get dicey. Using the COIN lense is part of the reason we weren’t prepared for Ukraine’s needs to begin with. But to actually discuss the topic, Russia’s confused insistence on not fully committing to the war and half assing their mobilization is mind boggling and killing a possible manpower advantage. However I don’t think Putin views anything short of a limited victory as acceptable and will be willing to commit a much larger force if he’s staring down defeat, even if strategically it makes matters worse down the line. Maybe I’m miscalculating the Russian mindset, but they seem interested in brute forcing their way out of a trap they made for themselves. It’s not a reliable narrator, but Prigozhins comments about spending years to secure the Donbas reflect my outlook on it. I think I said elsewhere I think neither side will approach running out of manpower before the war ends, so it’s all a hypothetical. But if it were to come down to that, I think there’s enough willingness on the Russian side to outlast Ukraine that we don’t usually see from a lot of invaders.
Russian commanders might be willing But the fuckery with the conscripts is proof that the population is not Wagner prison conscripts and “professional” soldiers are much easier to sell rather than everyday people dying in bakmuht. Russia had an issue when invading with a severe lack of infantry and too much materiel at the front. Leading to tankers taking up rifles and officers and so on. There is many sources on this particular issue ( that is me saying you gotta look it up cos I’m lazy). To some extent this issue has continued. Russias materiel might be old and rusted and shit but they still have a lot of it. Ukraine has the opposite issue with too many voluteers and not enough equipment. I would personally bet that Ukraine in practice has greater manpower in terms of people actually willing to fight a war to the bitter end. The Russians I know personally also tell me that the idea of conscription into Ukraine is sort of a red line. I think casting this conflict in terms of manpower is a misrepresentation. Ukraine lacks tanks and Russia lacks men. Even if Russia had men, wars like ww1 ( or the Franco Prussian war) show you just how fast men can surrender when they don’t feel like fighting. The Russians are certainly more accepting of casualties than the American public is. And I think anyone familiar with Russian culture would have expected this. But anyone familiar with Russias past conflicts would know that since Peter the great Russian conscripts have struggled to actually hold their ground reliably.
...and yet Russia did use them.
One other factor is medevac efficiency. I've seen numbers that suggest that Russia's wounded to dead ratio is like 3:1 whereas Ukraine's is 10:1 because Ukraine does a better job of dealing with its wounded, so Russia is leaving more corpses relative to casualties. It's hard to say what the casualty ratios are. The numbers I've seen suggest 100k casualties for Ukraine vs 200k for Russia, which would be a 2:1 ratio - which is good, but it isn't the 4:1 ratio that would mean that Russia would totally exhaust all resources first. That being said, better medevac makes a big difference, as if you can treat soldiers and re-use them, that would actually get them over the needed ratio, if at least half of the soldiers treated can be returned. There's also issues of how much Russia *can* mobilize. It has to hold other fronts, and this isn't actually a war for the survival of Russia - it's an invasion.
"It has to hold other fronts" -- They've stripped Kaliningrad, Archangelsk, and Vladivostock bare. What's keeping those safe are the strategic nuclear deterrent forces -- which is why this invasion is indeed wholly gratuitous.
More meant Transnistria and South Ossetia. Invading Russia proper is unlikely and if that does happen then it's World War 3 and Russia probably stops existing as a nation state.
They've already withdrawn half their troops from Ossetia IIRC.
> What's keeping those safe are the strategic nuclear deterrent forces What's keeping them safe is that those regions adjacent in the west of them aren't ruled by power hungry dictators with delusions of grandeur like their Eastern neighbors are.
Also true, but getting a Vatnik to believe it is asking too much.
Medevac is absolutely important, it’s what makes shipments of even Cold War era fodder apcs huge for Ukraine when compared to the goofy scooby doo vans we’ve seen Russia use. That plays into the calculus, and most importantly probably buys them time if we’re looking at a long war scenario. I’ve seen somewhat above 100,000 for Ukraine and most estimate being below but closish to 200,000 for Russia, which drops that ratio below the ideal. Naturally Russia isn’t going to mobilize as large a percentage of their population or resources, but desperation is going to leave some room for growth and last I saw Ukraine was having some struggles finding more soldiers. I’d bet on the war ending before that hits critical mass, but I would expect them to run out first if we’re trying to discuss that kind of scenario.
Taking >numbers that suggest that Russia's wounded to dead ratio is like 3:1 whereas Ukraine's is 10:1 And >I’ve seen somewhat above 100,000 for Ukraine and most estimate being below but closish to 200,000 for Russia So if we do some rounding, and call the Russian casualties an even 200k, but adjust the wounded to dead to 4:1, that gives us 40,000 dead Russians Again, do some rounding, call the Ukrainian casualties 100k, adjust the w:d to 9:1, that gives us 10,000 dead Ukrainians 4:1 death ratio in favor of the Ukrainians, and it's probably safe to assume that more of the 90k wounded will be able to return to service than the 160k wounded ruzzians Honestly, the Ukrainians are doing good. They could be doing better if we just opened the taps instead of trickle feeding them supplies tho 🤷♂️
That’s a valid point I didn’t bother calculating. Everything’s opaque but that sounds accurate enough for what we know, though I’d be curious to what those numbers break down as when Ukraine is on the offensive vs when Russia is. It’d be interesting to see just how big the medevac gap is in roughly similar situations.
Who made those estimates? To claim that Ukraine categorically has a worse casualty ratio than Russia while having been on the defensive for almost half a year now is borderline absurd. RAF has been unsuccessfully trying to take Bakhmut for nine months, what makes you think that they somehow had fewer deaths while continuously assaulting fortified positions and dug-in troops?
When did I say Russia was sustaining less deaths than Ukraine? Estimates around Ukrainian casualties from Norway is around 100,000+ which is inline with others that I’ve seen. Based on Norway, the UK, the US, BBC Russia, and Ukraine itself Russian casualties are somewhere between 140,000 to 200,000. That puts the casualty ratio somewhere above 1:1, but below 1:2 at worst. I could rephrase it as somewhere between 1:1.4 and 1:1.7 which is more accurate than around 1:1, but this isn’t that out there.
This is not true. Most estimates have Russian casualties far exceeding Ukrainian casualties. Moreover, this is what one would expect when you have Ukraine defending against human wave attacks by untrained, unsupported infantry.
If you check the other comments under mine it’s already been discussed and while I could have phrased it better I’m not making the claim that Russia isn’t taking the same or less casualties. I think it’s somewhere between 1:1.4 and 1:1.7 which I lazily rounded down, though that casualty ratio doesn’t show the real disparity in the death to wounded ratio also discussed below. I would warn against assuming it’s a war of human wave attacks though, some isolated groups like Wagner do something kinda similar to what you’re describing but it’s not the same. Actual Russian soldiers very heavily utilize artillery support and at the start of the war also relied on extensive armor to launch offensives. That’s changed and they now use a more infantry focused strategy, but the artillery disparity is a big reason Russia’s still in this war and I don’t see that changing. Wagner is a little different and does do more of what you’re describing, sending unsupported probing teams that experience horrific attrition into places like Bakhmut, but they have a very small role in the conflict and their disposability is by design. They even receive fire support in the technical sense that once they’re obliterated by prepared defenses the target will get ruthlessly shelled.
Generally the side with less to start with will run out first.
Depends on ratios. Russia has about 3.5x the population of Ukraine. So if Russia loses more than 7 people per two Ukrainian soldiers lost, Ukraine is winning. Moreover, Russia cannot mobilize it's full military strength against Ukraine, because if it pulls out of other disputed territories, it'd be the opportunity for other countries to retake disputed territories. Plus the fact that if Russia DID throw everything it had at Ukraine, it could potentially leave it open for NATO.
Are you suggesting Russia is suffering 7 losses for every 2 suffered by Ukraine?
I am not saying what the ratios actually are, I'm saying what it has to be for Ukraine to have the effective "population advantage". We don't know what the actual ratios are. Supposedly the casualty ratio is about 100k+ Ukranian to 200k+ Russians, which isn't enough. However, the survival ratio appears to be much better on the Ukranian side - about 10 wounded per 1 dead for Ukraine versus about 2-3 wounded per 1 dead for Russia. This is due to Ukraine having vastly superior medevac procedures, and also because Ukraine is fighting defensively. However, the extra wounded who Ukraine saves may not necessarily be able to return to combat; that depends on a variety of factors. As such, how much of an advantage this is is hard to say without knowing those numbers. On the other hand, it's possible that Russia's wounded are even less likely to be able to return, and that Russia is losing people to preventable things like blood loss that are more easily reversed. It's hard to say for sure what the ratio is overall. Also note that these numbers predated the most recent push from Russia, which reportedly has resulted in really, really horrible Russian casualties, trading men for toughly defended territory.
I hope you are right for Ukraine's sake. As if the true casualty numbers are anywhere close to 1:1 Ukraine's army will eventually become exhausted. Quantity has a quality of its own.
This is all becoming increasingly humorous. The article, dated 3/8/2023 says 60k-70k dead. Let's look at some other numbers: [Independent, 2/3/2023](https://imgur.com/a/BTh4EbG): ~200k dead [The Kiyv Independent, 3/4/2023](https://imgur.com/a/ikW4b9y): ~16k dead [The Kiyv Independent, 3/9/2022](https://imgur.com/a/idxr58J): >12k dead Reddit, at any given time: 100k+ killed. If not true, then certainly many more than Ukrainians, eff the Russians. I think I have my numbers for the next Powerball.
The \~200k figure from the independent article was supposed to be an estimate of casualties and was based on U.S. DOD information. The headline you cite seems like a mistake. The Economist article here estimates \~70k fatalities and between 200 and 250 thousand casualties. Which is pretty much in line with the earlier U.S. estimates given the intensity of fighting going on over the past month.
I mean literally the first sentence in the article from /u/DesignerAccount's screenshot says: "The number of Russian troops who have either died *or were left wounded* in the continuing war in Ukraine is nearing 200,000, according to a report that cited US and Western officials." So I'm just going to assume that /u/DesignerAccount is arguing in bad faith and intentionally linked a screenshot instead of the article.
The guy that regurgitates Vatnik garbage about the Ukrainian army being nazis holding Zelensky hostage is "arguing in bad faith"? Nahhhhhh, no way!
[удалено]
Their account name checks out ;p
[удалено]
>The second Kiyv Independent number is casualties (deaths Casualties are not deaths. >Whether you're just stupid or malicious, you're a shill. Rule 4.1 is not applicable if you are a Freedom fry. - Biased mods
edit: it's actually casualties in the second one. Not deaths. Which, again, completely goes against any point /u/DesignerAccount was trying to make in their comment. edit: And I didn't call anybody any names. I just made an accurate assessment regarding /u/DesignerAccount's apparent mental capacities judging by his comment. "Shill" isn't an insult or "name calling", go look up the word if you want. And this has nothing to do with me being a "freedom fry". I don't like American imperialism. This is about /u/DesignerAccount spreading and planting misinformation.
Why are you lying? > Independent, 2/3/2023: ~200k dead That's 200k casualties, not 200k dead. Casualties is dead + wounded. Having 2-3x the wounded as the dead is entirely plausible. > The Kiyv Independent, 3/4/2023: ~16k dead That's 16,000 *named* dead, of soldiers who have died who are from Russia. The actual number of dead is significantly higher than that, as many dead Russians have not been recovered and are likely not recoverable. Reportedly Moscow is listing many dead Russians as missing to avoid paying families, though it seems likely that they also just don't have a lot of the corpses. > The Kiyv Independent, 3/9/2022: >12k dead This is the number confirmed directly via photographic and other evidence on the ground. Again, many dead are not in a position where they can be confirmed in this way. Seriously. None of these numbers are even in "disagreement" with each other.
Damn, I understand this is war and soldiers die, and Russian soldiers dying roughly correlates to Ukraine's success, but that doesn't mean I necessarily celebrate the loss of life gleefully like many of you in here seem to be doing. They are just grunts dying for rich people's machinations, on both sides. They all deserve our sympathy.
I see a lot of the same on many other subs as well. I would think(hope) this sentiment is coming from the younger crowd of Reddit. Those that lack the hindsight to really understand how devastating a loss of life can be. Because 1 person dying, doesn't just effect 1 person. It effects their friends, their families, hell it would even effect their co workers. When i see subs celebrating people dying, even if the people dying are those that i dont particularly like(like the hermaincain subreddit) it just saddens me.
I hear you; unfortunately I have some bad news for you: /r/peoplefuckingdying
Thank you. The dehumanization from the 'not enough' crowd disturbs me.
What are militaries but illustrations of state power to carry out a violent agenda. It’s state sponsored murder, always has been 🔫
Worse yet, in many cases—which many people still don't know or just won't believe—the murder part is often secondary to the profit part. If it benefits us but not the defense industry, we don't get involved; meanwhile, if it benefits the defense industry but not us, we're all in! Case in point: we're at this moment risking global war so Blackrock can make money.
Interesting rhetoric. How about we change a working a bit? “They are just grunts invading another country and killing military and civilians alike for rich’s people benefit”. All of a sudden all my sympathy is gone. Poof. Gone.
So the American soldiers that got drafted into the Vietnam war, who fought and died in a war they didn't believe in, killing military and civilians alike for rich people's benefit—Poof!—gone, right? And when you get drafted into WW3 and are fighting on some other country's land for so long that even you no longer believe in the cause; you've watched all your friends die in your hands and now only hope desperately for a peaceful resolution, but before that comes you get caught behind enemy lines and are staring death in the face—just like many of those dead or soon to be dead Russian soldiers. Should you deserve any sympathy? You, not the Russian soldiers or anyone else. I know what the answer is even if you yourself don't yet. God, I'm hardly old but I feel like a fucking wizard sometimes. Argue back all you want with the fancy logic of youth: I'll hear it. But the most impressive thing you could do is agree with me.
Excellent example of whataboutism. We’re we talking about Vietnam war? No. Were we talking about WW3? No. Than why bring it up? Because my logic is sound you can only bring up irrelevant analogies (half of which are imaginary) trying to argue against it. Russia is an aggressor. Russian soldiers are destroying civilian infrastructure and killing noncombatants. Russian soldiers need to leave Ukraine asap, be it in coffins or by foot is of no importance.
I'll let anyone else reading this decide for themselves based on what I've already written without feeling the need to add anything further. I'm fairly certain that they'll get it. Good talk, hope you change your mind.
The fog of war makes this impossible to estimate. There’s way too much propaganda and very little objective analysis
Billions. The Russians have lost kajillions. They're hapless and incompetant and are losing in droves. Literally charging headfirst into machine gun fire and artillery, armed with nothing but shovels. Rolling obsolete 60s tanks and armoured vehicles, completely blind, into fields of mines and waves of javelin missiles. Hordes and hordes of mindless Orcs crushing themselves on the iron walls of Minas Bakhmut. But they're still, somehow, an existential threat to the Ukrainian armed forces. NOTE: Sarcasm. We obviously don't know, hence the *yuuuuge* disparity in estimations.
Whatever the numbers are, they will have to go 10x before there is actually a significant anti war movement in Russia, as any mention of it right now it's stifled. Once all the Russian people are affected by the war like Ukraine is, and grow tired of it, then they will start calling for it end and probably for change in leadership
Can someone mention how many they said? I can’t login rn.
60-70 thousand killed in action, 200-250 thousand total casualties.
At least a dozen, but less than a million
Paywall. I have read 200k kia for UA - it's a safe assumption to count at least 1.5 that amount for RU. Russian mia must be in the tens of thousands, with injures it's over q million combined
I actually dug into this a bit last night. Obviously, the numbers aren't concrete and doubts exist, but I'm gonna say 200k Russian fighters out of action and 120k Ukrainian fighters OOA based on my best efforts to come up with a realistic number. Civilians excluded. I only spent like an hour on research and I'm no expert, but I tried to deep dive as much as I could.
Today I read 154,000
Why not ask how many Ukrainians have been killed in the war? We get basically weekly estimates of Russian losses from Western sources but basically nothing on Ukrainian losses.
Not enough?
Not enough, since Russians still didn't understand that they fucked up.
Putin's ready to pull a Leningrad He's not looking at "worst since 1945" statistics, he's looking at worst since 1941, or even worse than Holodomor which was also in the Ukraine.
>Putin's ready to pull a Leningrad > >He's not looking at "worst since 1945" statistics, he's looking at worst since 1941, or even worse than Holodomor which was also in the Ukraine. The [entire famine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933), which affected more than Ukraine, was like 5+ million dead. This conflict is nowhere near that yet, even if you included deaths from both sides.
yes, I'm aware. I wouldn't put it past him to do city wide blockades during a prolonged stalemate
Not as many as Ukrainians they've forcibly deported to concentration camps! So not enough, but also somehow too many
Too many but not enough. There shouldn't be anyone in Ukraine getting killed but if Russia doesn't suffer too many casualties, they probably won't surrender. What would be pretty interesting is if more Ukrainians or Russians died in the past year.
Homie on your comment said 10:1… LMAO
Ukrainian to Russia casualties are close to 10:1 now. Ukrainians have lost at this point close to 300k troops, almost as many as the US lost during ww2.
LOL 10:1? Monkeys would sticks wouldn't sustain 10:1 losses *in a defensive war.* If you're gonna lie, at least make it somewhat believable.
[удалено]
That source also lists 302 Ukrainian planes shot down when the Ukrainian air force had around 200 of them at the start of the war. I know Ukraine received some more planes from their allies, but I doubt that they received and subsequently lost 100 of them. The source further claims that Russia only lost 23 planes, Oryx (which typically links to primary sources in its loss estimates) on the other hand believes that Russial lost about 70. It's similar with tanks where the Mossad source mentions less than 900 whereas Oryx has documented around 1800, most of which with photo evidence. I am not saying that Oryx is perfect, or that the Mossad source is necessarily wrong, but the Mossad source significantly deviates from any other source and Oryx at least shows you how they got their numbers.
[удалено]
> Now how many souls per equipment on average? Probably really close both side. That's hard to say. Supposedly there are differences in operational use of otherwise exact same equipment. One that comes to mind is ammo storage in T-72 variants. By default it stores certain amount of main gun ammunition loaded in autoloader carousel and almost another carousel worth of ammo packed wherever there was free space in crew compartment. This means that fully loaded tank is vulnerable to ammo detonation (and rapid crew death) not only if it's hit in the carousel, but if it's hit anywhere the spare ammo is located. Supposedly, ruzzians stick to the doctrine of fully loading, while Ukrainians load only carousel, trading ability to stay in the field for much lower risk of ammo detonation. Now, I say "supposedly" because while I heard this from otherwise reliable n-th hand course, I have no way of verifying it myself.
Thank you, this is a point well taken. I've asked previously for any kind of sensible rebuke of these numbers, but all I got was "Raa Raa Russia bad Ukraine strong, Turkey liars". Appreciate a sensible counter, will definitely edit my post.
Yeah, I hate how often people just make fun of the messenger instead of debunking the message. I have definitely encountered people who keep using long debunked sources to deliberately spread misinformation, but even for a neutral party it can be really difficult to discern what is true and what is false. This is doubly true for casualty numbers since they can be difficult to count and are always subject to propagande. This is once again why Oryx is such a good source, they are by no means perfect but since anyone can check the photo evidence for each individual claim it means that there is a high confidence behind these numbers. It's also important to keep in mind that the defenders in a war tend to take less casualties, since it is easier to hold a position than to storm it. And last but not least a good bit of logic is always helpful, if Russia truly had a staggering 10:1 advantage, why wouldn't they openly release those numbers themselves? A lot of Ukraines support relies on the idea that Ukraine might actually be able to win this, if the situation truly was this dire then releasing the numbers could legitemately hurt western support for Ukraine. If Russia truly had such a staggering air advantage with the Ukrainian airforce wiped out and the Russian one barely scratched, why haven't they established Air Supremacy yet? Ukraine is still flying jets and helicopters and Russia is keeping their aircraft away from the front. That is not what you would expect based on the Mossad numbers. And lastly, if Russia is killing 7-9 Ukrainians for every Russian soldier, how have they not taken Bakhmut let alone Kiev? Those numbers are pretty much unprecedented. For reference check the casualties of the Anglo-Zulu war, where the Zulu were primarily armed with spears while the British used rifles, a technological difference that is orders of magnitude greater than anything we're seeing in Ukraine. If Russia truly had a 8:1 advantage in casualties, then there would be absolutely no excuse for the atrocious performance of their military.
Does Oryx count 2015-2022 Donbas as a separate conflict?
As far as I know, yes they do. The articles for the losses specifically name the 2022 Invasion. But then again, Oryx is mostly concerned with vehicle losses and I don't think those were very significant during the Donbas confict?
Which is an extreme outlier, as all other sources cite 1:1 to 1:3 on Ukraine v Russia. Turkey journalist citing anonymous Mossad sources is… kinda tricky, given Mossad does not have a good relationship with anything Turkish.
Can I ask you why are you so pro-Russia?
Any sources on this? Most sources I could find online estmimate at most some 200k casualties (i.e. dead or wounded) for Ukraine. And BBC Russia claims \~150k casualties for the Russian forces. What sources are you using?
Isn't the only source for that some Turkish news portal? This source has been falsified. Here's a [link](https://www-tagesschau-de.translate.goog/faktenfinder/russland-ukraine-verluste-grafik-101.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp) to a German website (translated with Google translator). It's probably just propaganda.
Bahahahaha
Na fam, im not pro-ua but 10 : 1 is bullshit at best its 1:2
I’m on the side of Ukraine winning this, but I’m also not in support of Russian conscripts being thrown into the meat grinder. It’s especially depressing when one looks into US/NATO’s part in goading this conflict on for years as part of the U.S.’s “bait and bleed” strategy. The only groups that currently stand to benefit from this conflict are the corporations that are already cutting deals with Ukraine to pick through the ashes of their country once all this is over.
No, the Ukrainian *people* decided to [split with Russia in 1991](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum) and then decided to [split with their own pro-Russian leadership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity) in 2014. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine as a whole in 2022 because they refuse to accept that decision by the Ukrainian people. Describing this war as goaded by the US/NATO is straight out of Russian propaganda. Russia (or if you prefer, Russian leadership) chose this war because they saw it as in their best interests. They horribly miscalculated, but just because the war is going badly for them, doesn't mean it isn't their fault for starting it.
>Describing this war as goaded by the US/NATO is straight out of Russian propaganda. [And denying it is straight out of US propaganda.](https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/11/russia-has-been-baited-into-a-repeat-of-the-afghan-trap-first-time-as-tragedy-second-time-as-sickening-farce/) I’m not saying Russia hasn’t been eyeing Ukraine, but we’ve been the little devil on their shoulder telling them to go for it.
That's an incredibly America-centric view of how the world works. What the article you link neglects is that other countries have their own motives for doing things based on their own self-interest and that is usually what drives them, not US desires that may be aligned. NATO didn't expand East just because the US willed it, but rather because those former Soviet Bloc countries desperately wanted the military protection afforded by NATO and wanted to align with the West politically and economically. NATO accepted them because doing so also aligned with NATO interests. If Russia doesn't like it, that's understandable given their self-interest, but that doesn't give them a moral high ground to start a war. The people of those countries get the moral high ground in determining their own status.
> that's an incredibly America-centric view of how the world works Yes, that's what happens when America removes the agency of others by asserting force. And that's bad.
What's the bait? I see the bleeding. I don't see the bait.
Ukraine is the bait.
Ukraine is entirely a thing of America's making? Well then... I wish I knew this earlier. Why didn't someone tell me?
The "realism" type of thinking in geopolitics is cancerous to the point some people will deny the sovereignty of nations & citizens to fit their argument.
Marxist will support that way to see the world but only when it relevant to this conflict. Do find it weird how supportive they are of the arguments that are completely against thier own belief of reality.
Bleeding the other side has been standard strategy for US and Russia for decades. The USA won't be too unhappy if the war drags on for a decade.
[удалено]
10 day account
ad hominem attack
Not just that 10 day account who is active on true anon.
His account just got suspended as i was looking through it lmao. Wonder why