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.
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.
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.
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.