I think this is far more believable than the 7,000 - 15,000 the United States Ministry of Propaganda claims.
Edit: I'd also like to add that the fact they can't narrow it down any closer than a spread of 8,000 casualties seems incredibly amateurish, and just plain not credible. They can do whatever they want with numbers they made up. Why not make them more believable?
7000-15000 casualties seems perfectly realistic. A bit low, if anything.
The problem is in definitions of words. To a layperson, a casualty is a dead body. To a military or disaster expert, a casualty is someone with a cut on their arm.
15k injured Russians is plenty believable. They just make sure to word it in such a way that it SEEMS like they're saying something completely different.
I think this is far more believable than the 7,000 - 15,000 the United States Ministry of Propaganda claims.
Edit: I'd also like to add that the fact they can't narrow it down any closer than a spread of 8,000 casualties seems incredibly amateurish, and just plain not credible. They can do whatever they want with numbers they made up. Why not make them more believable?
7000-15000 casualties seems perfectly realistic. A bit low, if anything.
The problem is in definitions of words. To a layperson, a casualty is a dead body. To a military or disaster expert, a casualty is someone with a cut on their arm.
15k injured Russians is plenty believable. They just make sure to word it in such a way that it SEEMS like they're saying something completely different.
I imagine most products of the american education system never had the talk about casualties vs fatalities in their history classes.
Too busy watching feral children slap each other in front of a disinterested teacher barely hiding their alcoholism.