I mean they would have, but they'd use western influence and skew the numbers heavily. "Russians lost 3.4 billion soldiers yesterday, which is 2 soldiers for every person who voted for biden in the last election."
As someone who called out the bullshit stats about "how bad Russia was losing," I'm going to have to do the same here. This looks unbelievable, at least at first glance.
6.3k tanks and armored vehicles lost by Ukraine seems insane. I started doing math, but had missed that it included other armored vehicles at first but, still, that just seems crazy high. I think that's like fifty percent of their forces, and that may include stuff that wasn't even operational for deployment.
On the other hand, I'm certainly no expert, and Russia has apparently been lobbing missiles like crazy, maybe they really have been just obliterating all the armor. Also, war is crazy, and it's hard to conceptualize all this, so who knows.
It would certainly be interesting if true though, considering this is the opposite of what the media wants to pretend is happening. Also, either way, all this death is at the hands of the globalists keeping this war going.
The missiles are hitting large targets, like power distribution centers, and they've been quite limited in number. If the Russians are taking out armor, it's by use of artillery, which has been deployed massively. According to some folks, 99% of fatalities on both sides are the result of artillery, and don't even have bullet wounds.
Those armored vehicle stats are likely pumped up, as its likely that even things such as armored bulldozers and engineering vehicles are being counted. Nonetheless, it is an impressive kill difference.
The armored losses could also be due to the fancy top of the line Ukrainian tanks being prototypes in numbers likely below 10 per type. Those are either being held back or were destroyed long ago, so Ukrainian armed forces are going up against the Russian Military with older vehicles that don't have adequate upgrade packages. Russian armored vehicles, on the other hand, will still be made up of majority older vehicles, but they likely have more that are upgraded, and even the ones that aren't do have the support of a more organized supportive system.
Most videos you see of a "Russian" tank having been destroyed in an ammo cookoff are likely Ukrainian, as the concussive force of such an explosion will render most identifiers either gone or covered in ash.
A nearly 10-1 death ratio sounds very unlikely. What is the proof that this is actually from the Mossad, and that the Mossad would actually be able to accurately find out about these numbers?
And 2458 dead NATO soldiers from Germany? I'd be surprised if it was 24.
The Gulf War had about a 100-1 death ratio estimates on the low end, and that was against the 4th largest army in the world at the time.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that one of the largest militaries in the world would get that result against a small corrupt Slavic nation, even if it were getting help from the west.
The Gulf War had about a 100-1 death ratio estimates on the low end, and that was against the 4th largest army in the world at the time.
Yes, it's not completely impossible. But this was after shock-and-awe and establishing air superiority very early on, and just mercilessly pounding demoralized conscripts from the air.
I'll never understand the Russian air force's non-existent performance. Whoever heads the Russian air force should follow the example of his predecessor in June 1941. Apparently, USSR military doctrine was that they were never going to get air superiority, so they focused on artillery and AA instead. Bizarre stuff.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that one of the largest militaries in the world would get that result against a small corrupt Slavic nation, even if it were getting help from the west.
Two corrupt Slavic countries going at each other. One has the greater theoretical manpower (though not used, because they used only 170k for an invasion of a huge country with 50 million people) and more material, while the other has 800k with military experience due to 9 years spent terrorizing the people of Donbas.
In absence of a successful coup de main, it does not seem immediately clear to me that the Russians have the advantage, unless they actually mobilize their superior resources and manpower.
It probably as someone has stated before a doctrine issue. The USSR and Russia afterwards strategic planning never envisioned a scenario in which they would be able to have or maintain air superiority long term over hostile territory and instead is focused on defense and retaliatory actions.
It makes sense when you look at Russia's primary potential enemies are. Also when you factor in Russia's previous military engagements have all be low level conflicts in which there wasn't any form contestable air space.
True. Russia has the longest borders in the world with nations of various hostility. Their entire history of modern military doctrine has been "can we defend ourselves against massive, land based armies long enough, utilizing tactical retreats and scorched earth while the war machine gets going?". Mobile anti air platforms that can fall back with mechanized units while production and conscription ramps up is certainly helpful as compared to immobile air bases. Once you get the massive war machine operational, you can build enough ground forces and mobile AA to cover for that weakness. After all, if you have the most powerful air force in the world but an enemy army overruns your airfields, what good are those planes?
Conversely, the US has to utilize amphibious landings to engage in the most likely theatres of war, and as you know, an amphibious landing without air superiority is simply a fancy way to waste resources and men.
The US will bomb the shit out of anyone, but the spaces they've held on the ground have been like Kabul and the Green Zone. The US will come in and hold just the airport and be like we own it.
I do enjoy his talks with Napolitano, as I do Scott Ritter's, but I take both their claims with as much salt as the Western media. There is simply no way to know.
Yeah, that did make me uncomfortable - although it has little to do with his analysis, such as it is. And he says that it was retaliation for his opposition to WMD lies - who knows these days?
While I wouldn't put it past the feds to set someone up, it's also the same excuse that every pedo makes. "I've been entraped! It was planted, I swear! etc..."
Sure. I'm not endorsing the claim, but I think setting up is slightly more likely from someone who actually got in the feds' way than Mr. Smelly Vagrant.
According to Ritter, someone in the Clinton administration said that they would look him to fuck him hard. Take it with a grain of salt, it may just be excuse-making.
Hell, before 2020, I'd have said that it's nonsense. Unfortunately, I've seen that Western governments (like other governments) are capable of almost anything.
Why would a 10:1 death ratio be unlikely? It's Ukraine, hardly an adversary with training, organization, attitude, or resources equivalent to those of Russia.
First of all, because the state would have long collapsed with a 10:1 death ratio. Secondly, Ukraine is not untrained. It has had 800k with practical experience terrorizing the Donbas.
As long as Russia refuses to equalize, this will happen.
I wouldn't call it generous to send weapons to fight until the last Ukrainian, but point taken. That said, 10:1 simply is not sustainable, especially for a country that is already at a 3-4 deficit in the relevant population.
Neither would I call it generous to have billions of taxpayer dollars stolen for the sake of virtue signaling and supporting a corrupt backwater, but Zelensky certainly has.
10:1 simply is not sustainable
Which is why so many optimistic stories and pieces of information to come out of Kiev have been shown to be false. It's not sustainable, Ukraine is losing.
Which is why so many optimistic stories and pieces of information to come out of Kiev have been shown to be false. It's not sustainable, Ukraine is losing.
If the 10:1 is true. However, I've also seen some Russian nationalists be extremely blackpilled about the war, because, they claim, the kremlins are not taking the war seriously.
People think Russia cares about it's soldiers lives. The reason they haven't gone all in, is because they're straling a play from the US, using a low level conflict to get rid of old equipment and get combat experience. The soldiers who live have more value, the soldiers who die, die - slavic nihilism at work again.
IIRC, 250k Russians died and 60k Fins. Which is not exactly unlikely, considering how disastrous the invasion went. Besides, those numbers are the result of decades of historical research, not one website/newspaper reported the alleged claims of the Mossad.
Generally, those on the offense suffer greater casualties than on the defense, World War II France excepted. I don't think it's the case here, somewhere between 3-1 to 1-1 seems more likely.
Generally, those on the offense suffer greater casualties than on the defense,
That is the main thing that the numbers in the screenshot seem incredibly fake to me. A 10-1 casualty ratio in your favor, when you're the aggressor, especially when you launched a few abortive offenses in the first weeks of the war that went no where? That's not happening.
Agreed, even accounting for all the cannon fodder the Ukrainians used around Kherson and Kharkov.
The only reason I'm not completely ruling it out, is because of the incompetent Russian PR and because the Ukrainians are in bed with the US and the EU to spread propaganda. It seems to me that this would be very difficult to hide, but if you have a great propaganda apparat, then it is at least theoretically possible.
And more importantly, when you have spent the last several months losing massive amounts of ground, and then getting bogged down every time you have tried to retake it, to the point that one particularly well defended area could credibly be confused for a WW1 No-Mans Land shot if you made it black and white.
Numbers can lie. Combat footage does not. We can argue about who is winning what. But the idea that Russia is stomping on the Ukrainians is utterly laughable. And I would go so far as guessing the kill ratio is in Ukraine's favor (just by a small amount).
Of course combat footage lies. Who do you think decides what you are shown and when? The Russians are extraordinarily bad a PR, so it's certainly not them.
And I would go so far as guessing the kill ratio is in Ukraine's favor (just by a small amount).
That is not outside reasonable estimates. However, given Russia's vast population advantage, this is much worse for Ukraine. At least, depending on who is killed. Apparently, they sent a lot of 40/50-year-old men to their deaths around Kharkov and Kherson. If their kills are professional Russian soldiers, it would be worth it in a Machiavellian sense.
I think it’s more like they don’t see the value in fighting a bullshit “information war” and trying to “win hearts and minds” when they can systematically demilitarize the opponent with a 10:1 k/d ratio. They live in reality.
Is not the biggest chance of them losing based on the Russian public giving up? I mean they are way larger than Ukraine, so if their heart is in it they should win eventually.
If they live in reality, they will know that perception is far more important than reality. Because you don't want to win on the battlefield, only for the corrupt West to give so many more weapons to Ukraine so more Russian boys end up dying.
Not that ruling classes care about their subject, there or here, but still.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Ukrainian figures are accurate but the Russian figures in this post are totally bogus. OSINT sources that confirm Russian losses visually say that the Russian vehicle/aircraft losses are about 10x the numbers shown in OP's article.
Yeah that looks about right. Ukraine's military is basically the USSR's from 1990. Sure they have a few modern level vehicles, but there aren't many Ukrainian tanks rolling around that have the most up-to-date upgrade packages. Lots of those were either prototypes or Western tech slapped onto USSR vehicles hoping that it would work well enough.
I meant to write Turkish newspaper, not Ukrainian. Ukraine would never publish these informations.
I mean they would have, but they'd use western influence and skew the numbers heavily. "Russians lost 3.4 billion soldiers yesterday, which is 2 soldiers for every person who voted for biden in the last election."
As someone who called out the bullshit stats about "how bad Russia was losing," I'm going to have to do the same here. This looks unbelievable, at least at first glance.
6.3k tanks and armored vehicles lost by Ukraine seems insane. I started doing math, but had missed that it included other armored vehicles at first but, still, that just seems crazy high. I think that's like fifty percent of their forces, and that may include stuff that wasn't even operational for deployment.
On the other hand, I'm certainly no expert, and Russia has apparently been lobbing missiles like crazy, maybe they really have been just obliterating all the armor. Also, war is crazy, and it's hard to conceptualize all this, so who knows.
It would certainly be interesting if true though, considering this is the opposite of what the media wants to pretend is happening. Also, either way, all this death is at the hands of the globalists keeping this war going.
The missiles are hitting large targets, like power distribution centers, and they've been quite limited in number. If the Russians are taking out armor, it's by use of artillery, which has been deployed massively. According to some folks, 99% of fatalities on both sides are the result of artillery, and don't even have bullet wounds.
Those armored vehicle stats are likely pumped up, as its likely that even things such as armored bulldozers and engineering vehicles are being counted. Nonetheless, it is an impressive kill difference.
The armored losses could also be due to the fancy top of the line Ukrainian tanks being prototypes in numbers likely below 10 per type. Those are either being held back or were destroyed long ago, so Ukrainian armed forces are going up against the Russian Military with older vehicles that don't have adequate upgrade packages. Russian armored vehicles, on the other hand, will still be made up of majority older vehicles, but they likely have more that are upgraded, and even the ones that aren't do have the support of a more organized supportive system.
Most videos you see of a "Russian" tank having been destroyed in an ammo cookoff are likely Ukrainian, as the concussive force of such an explosion will render most identifiers either gone or covered in ash.
A nearly 10-1 death ratio sounds very unlikely. What is the proof that this is actually from the Mossad, and that the Mossad would actually be able to accurately find out about these numbers?
And 2458 dead NATO soldiers from Germany? I'd be surprised if it was 24.
The Gulf War had about a 100-1 death ratio estimates on the low end, and that was against the 4th largest army in the world at the time.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that one of the largest militaries in the world would get that result against a small corrupt Slavic nation, even if it were getting help from the west.
Yes, it's not completely impossible. But this was after shock-and-awe and establishing air superiority very early on, and just mercilessly pounding demoralized conscripts from the air.
I'll never understand the Russian air force's non-existent performance. Whoever heads the Russian air force should follow the example of his predecessor in June 1941. Apparently, USSR military doctrine was that they were never going to get air superiority, so they focused on artillery and AA instead. Bizarre stuff.
Two corrupt Slavic countries going at each other. One has the greater theoretical manpower (though not used, because they used only 170k for an invasion of a huge country with 50 million people) and more material, while the other has 800k with military experience due to 9 years spent terrorizing the people of Donbas.
In absence of a successful coup de main, it does not seem immediately clear to me that the Russians have the advantage, unless they actually mobilize their superior resources and manpower.
Russian air power is the most confusing thing.
I remember playing THeatre Europe as the Allies - you had to focus on Air Superiority from the get go otherwise you'd be crushed.
It probably as someone has stated before a doctrine issue. The USSR and Russia afterwards strategic planning never envisioned a scenario in which they would be able to have or maintain air superiority long term over hostile territory and instead is focused on defense and retaliatory actions.
It makes sense when you look at Russia's primary potential enemies are. Also when you factor in Russia's previous military engagements have all be low level conflicts in which there wasn't any form contestable air space.
True. Russia has the longest borders in the world with nations of various hostility. Their entire history of modern military doctrine has been "can we defend ourselves against massive, land based armies long enough, utilizing tactical retreats and scorched earth while the war machine gets going?". Mobile anti air platforms that can fall back with mechanized units while production and conscription ramps up is certainly helpful as compared to immobile air bases. Once you get the massive war machine operational, you can build enough ground forces and mobile AA to cover for that weakness. After all, if you have the most powerful air force in the world but an enemy army overruns your airfields, what good are those planes?
Conversely, the US has to utilize amphibious landings to engage in the most likely theatres of war, and as you know, an amphibious landing without air superiority is simply a fancy way to waste resources and men.
The US will bomb the shit out of anyone, but the spaces they've held on the ground have been like Kabul and the Green Zone. The US will come in and hold just the airport and be like we own it.
For what it’s worth, Colonel Douglas McGregor of the US has claimed for a long time now that Russia is managing an approximately 10:1 kill ratio.
I do enjoy his talks with Napolitano, as I do Scott Ritter's, but I take both their claims with as much salt as the Western media. There is simply no way to know.
Scott Ritter is a convicted pedophile. Anyone who platforms him is sus.
Yeah, that did make me uncomfortable - although it has little to do with his analysis, such as it is. And he says that it was retaliation for his opposition to WMD lies - who knows these days?
While I wouldn't put it past the feds to set someone up, it's also the same excuse that every pedo makes. "I've been entraped! It was planted, I swear! etc..."
Sure. I'm not endorsing the claim, but I think setting up is slightly more likely from someone who actually got in the feds' way than Mr. Smelly Vagrant.
According to Ritter, someone in the Clinton administration said that they would look him to fuck him hard. Take it with a grain of salt, it may just be excuse-making.
Hell, before 2020, I'd have said that it's nonsense. Unfortunately, I've seen that Western governments (like other governments) are capable of almost anything.
Why would a 10:1 death ratio be unlikely? It's Ukraine, hardly an adversary with training, organization, attitude, or resources equivalent to those of Russia.
First of all, because the state would have long collapsed with a 10:1 death ratio. Secondly, Ukraine is not untrained. It has had 800k with practical experience terrorizing the Donbas.
As long as Russia refuses to equalize, this will happen.
It's not exactly a 1v1. Ukraine is currently being propped up with extremely generous aid packages from virtually every single Western power.
I wouldn't call it generous to send weapons to fight until the last Ukrainian, but point taken. That said, 10:1 simply is not sustainable, especially for a country that is already at a 3-4 deficit in the relevant population.
Neither would I call it generous to have billions of taxpayer dollars stolen for the sake of virtue signaling and supporting a corrupt backwater, but Zelensky certainly has.
Which is why so many optimistic stories and pieces of information to come out of Kiev have been shown to be false. It's not sustainable, Ukraine is losing.
If the 10:1 is true. However, I've also seen some Russian nationalists be extremely blackpilled about the war, because, they claim, the kremlins are not taking the war seriously.
People think Russia cares about it's soldiers lives. The reason they haven't gone all in, is because they're straling a play from the US, using a low level conflict to get rid of old equipment and get combat experience. The soldiers who live have more value, the soldiers who die, die - slavic nihilism at work again.
Yet you probably believe the numbers from Finnish-Soviet war where the death ratio was claimed to be nearly 10-1.
IIRC, 250k Russians died and 60k Fins. Which is not exactly unlikely, considering how disastrous the invasion went. Besides, those numbers are the result of decades of historical research, not one website/newspaper reported the alleged claims of the Mossad.
Generally, those on the offense suffer greater casualties than on the defense, World War II France excepted. I don't think it's the case here, somewhere between 3-1 to 1-1 seems more likely.
That is the main thing that the numbers in the screenshot seem incredibly fake to me. A 10-1 casualty ratio in your favor, when you're the aggressor, especially when you launched a few abortive offenses in the first weeks of the war that went no where? That's not happening.
Agreed, even accounting for all the cannon fodder the Ukrainians used around Kherson and Kharkov.
The only reason I'm not completely ruling it out, is because of the incompetent Russian PR and because the Ukrainians are in bed with the US and the EU to spread propaganda. It seems to me that this would be very difficult to hide, but if you have a great propaganda apparat, then it is at least theoretically possible.
And more importantly, when you have spent the last several months losing massive amounts of ground, and then getting bogged down every time you have tried to retake it, to the point that one particularly well defended area could credibly be confused for a WW1 No-Mans Land shot if you made it black and white.
Numbers can lie. Combat footage does not. We can argue about who is winning what. But the idea that Russia is stomping on the Ukrainians is utterly laughable. And I would go so far as guessing the kill ratio is in Ukraine's favor (just by a small amount).
Of course combat footage lies. Who do you think decides what you are shown and when? The Russians are extraordinarily bad a PR, so it's certainly not them.
That is not outside reasonable estimates. However, given Russia's vast population advantage, this is much worse for Ukraine. At least, depending on who is killed. Apparently, they sent a lot of 40/50-year-old men to their deaths around Kharkov and Kherson. If their kills are professional Russian soldiers, it would be worth it in a Machiavellian sense.
I think it’s more like they don’t see the value in fighting a bullshit “information war” and trying to “win hearts and minds” when they can systematically demilitarize the opponent with a 10:1 k/d ratio. They live in reality.
Is not the biggest chance of them losing based on the Russian public giving up? I mean they are way larger than Ukraine, so if their heart is in it they should win eventually.
If they live in reality, they will know that perception is far more important than reality. Because you don't want to win on the battlefield, only for the corrupt West to give so many more weapons to Ukraine so more Russian boys end up dying.
Not that ruling classes care about their subject, there or here, but still.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Ukrainian figures are accurate but the Russian figures in this post are totally bogus. OSINT sources that confirm Russian losses visually say that the Russian vehicle/aircraft losses are about 10x the numbers shown in OP's article.
Not to comment in any way on the specific numbers you specify, which may well be true, but OSINT is a joke.
Yeah that looks about right. Ukraine's military is basically the USSR's from 1990. Sure they have a few modern level vehicles, but there aren't many Ukrainian tanks rolling around that have the most up-to-date upgrade packages. Lots of those were either prototypes or Western tech slapped onto USSR vehicles hoping that it would work well enough.
I see too many red flags
Just the visually confirmed Russian armoured vehicle losses is 10x higher than what's claimed here.
You've seen nine thousand destroyed tanks you could identify as Russian?
So you're making a claim you can only back up with personal attacks. Got it.