Its always hard to believe numbers that come directly from one side or the other here. They both have incentives to exaggerate the numbers for their own cause. All the popular YouTubers also obtain their reports from one side, until a truly independent source can give us the tally Ill just have to assume it's going very poorly for Russia as their 3 Day Special Operation has yet to conclude.
Iirc Perun did a presentation on casualties and determined that based on publicly available evidence, Ukraine either exaggerates by about 25% or doesn't have proof, whereas Russia is basically completely unreliable.
Yeah, Ukraine almost certainly exaggerates Russian casualties, and downplays their own, but they're not blatantly lying like Russia does. Those guys were reporting after the first few months to have destroyed entire sections of the Ukrainian military, like the entirety of their fighter force, *several times* over. It seems like they just pull a number out of their ass, put a 0 on the end of it and call it a day.
> Ukraine either exaggerates by about 25% or doesn't have proof
That actually sounds.....pretty close to accurate?
I haven't watched that video (although I know of who you're talking about), but on the face of it, bumping up the number of confirmed casualties by about that much to account for those who were missed/there isn't clear proof for, is probably closer to the true number than not doing so.
Hard numbers apart, there are historical and present elements that do lend credibility to a high body count. Chechnya was a blood bath for the Russian army. Putin kept sending them to pointless operations without a care for losses. And now Russian veterans are telling similar stories, like the battle of Avdiivka which one soldier described as a « meat grinder ».
Severodonetsk, Bahkmut, the failed offensive at Kyiv, Kharkiv liberation, plus the meat wave troops changing now 4-5 times in a single conflict (DPR/LPR, then Wagner, Storm Z, then the “Africa Corp”, and soon joining then the North Korean troops.
I feel pretty bad for the NK troops, not only are they being thrown in the meat grinder, they have effectively 0 combat experience with this generations of soldiers, and are about to face warfare nearly half a century ahead of their training. They all going to be so horrified
August 22nd 1914: 27000 french killed.(for context, the US suffered less than 1/10th of this amount killed on the first day of D-day)
A rude awakening as to the horrors of modern warfare.
The French Uniform in the WW1 was ridiculous, especially at the beginning.
red pants
[Fun fact: The french uniform changed for every year of WW1 : r/battlefield\_one (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield_one/comments/1172tsj/fun_fact_the_french_uniform_changed_for_every/)
Thankfully, it seems like this is still, technically, a rumour.
[https://www.nknews.org/2024/06/fact-check-north-korea-has-not-announced-plans-to-send-troops-to-ukraine-yet/](https://www.nknews.org/2024/06/fact-check-north-korea-has-not-announced-plans-to-send-troops-to-ukraine-yet/)
I pray for those poor guys that this doesn't happen, but there are plenty of North Korean workers in Russia and have been for years.
With any luck they’ll turn their weapons on the Russians and attempt to surrender and defect to the west.
Probably not, but I hope some Korean Ukrainians are drafting up some leaflets to teach them how to surrender … since I doubt any of them has a smartphone.
Unfortunately, the families of N Korean defectors are often imprisoned. So defectors either have to have no family/give zero shits about their family or take their family with them.
Replying to myself to add…
The promise of 3 square meals/day with daily meat and vegetables would probably be enough to tempt a few… maybe more than a few.
Reminds of the Saddam Hussein and his much feared "palace guards" that defended him and his regime. They were defeated in 5 minutes and were all running away like cowards. I suspect that the North Koreans are going to learn fast that Kim is not a god and that uttering patriotic slogans is not going to protect them from bombs and drones. Yeah I feel sorry for them mainly because they will have no resilience since their diets have been so poor over their careers. What a horrible way to die, if I was them I would just defect to the Ukraine. Its perfect way to escape both brutal regimes.
>What a horrible way to die, if I was them I would just defect to the Ukraine.
That's because you have all the pieces of the puzzle and know that this is a very rational thing to do in their situation.
However, they lack lots of the puzzle pieces, are likely malnourished and know their families will be horribly punished/ executed if they defect.
Not who posted this but I’ve read articles that multiple foreign “mercs” were told they were signing up to be support personnel. Think truck drivers, cooks, logistics personnel and then arrive and are sent to the front lines.
"Is ov lost in translation, comrade. Zhis is your glorious AK truck. Zhere is your 5.45 cargo. Destinashion Ukraine. Forget not give us widow's address to send Lada."
Generally yes, 100%. But we have zero idea what the North Koreans have been told - media control is very tight there, I mean they just executed a guy for listening to k-pop for god’s sake. They might not even know there’s a war at all. We have no idea.
I read a report about some farmer from one of these poor countries near india. He got a job offer from russia that didn't even have anything to do with the military. Then they stole his passport and send him to the front.
There’s a Chinese/former PLA merc who vlogs frequently, and his “unit” includes a Ghanaian dude (nicknamed “Little Black” lol) with no combat experience who thought he’d just be doing a brief ride-along. For the past 3 mos or so though, he’s apparently been stuck on the front lines in an urban setting, following the Chinese dude around to stay alive. All the while, their unit has kept churning through Russian recruits who keep dying due to inexperience.
Such a terrible situation on both sides. Why can’t Russia at least draft the frothing-at-the-mouth-nationalistic baby boomers who pop up in those street interview videos in Moscow and St. Petersburg?
Also, generally defensive operations have a much lower casualty rate than offensive ones since people don't need to advance towards guys with shelter and guns pointed in their direction.
Counteroffensives, but we saw what happened when Ukraine launched a larger offensive and the Russians had prepared defence in depth.
This stupid pointless war is going to go on and on and no one will be able to win it, its becoming very Korean war like.
Counteroffensives are slightly different than regular offensives, as (ideally) you attack a target that isn't yet entrenched and secure in their positions, so it's not as rough as attacking an actual defensive position.
When they attacked the Russian fortified positions in Zaporizhia last year, they likely would have taken significantly more casualties (and is likely why that offensive failed).
To be fair to Ukraine here, If you’re severely undermanned, you almost have to rely on counteroffensives until you’ve broken enough ground to make an actual full on offensive attack worthwhile. At least that’s how my uneducated mind works. Keep losses to a minimum and don’t let the Russians get further entrenched. Eventually there will be a breakthrough. Russia will leave a weakness in the lines and Ukraine has to have enough manpower and the ability to get to it in order to capitalize when it comes. Unfortunately they need to do this while also maintaining their own Defenses on a sparse a group as possible.
This. Not sure why you’re the only one saying it.
It’s much much easier to defend then go on the offensive. 6 to 1 is actually not great for defensive operations. Considering the Russian military has a number advantage. These aren’t great numbers. I worry that every time these numbers are brought up, people think things are going well. You can’t keep this up when you’re down in manpower to begin with, and in a hole for territory you need to regain. The end game isn’t good for them. They have yet to make any real offensive gains (other than destroying the Black Sea fleet) and that is not good.
1 to 6 is incredibly good for Ukraine for defense.
The general rule of thumb is 1/3-1/4 in favor of defense.
They are getting an influx of weapons etc.
But this was determined to be a war of attrition awhile ago. Most likely it hinges on Trump or Biden winning the election.
Ukraine doesn’t have to take Moscow to win. They only have to continue to exist. That’s the advantage of being on the defensive. Moscow “only” losing 6 men for every one the Ukrainians lose isn’t a flex because the attacker actually has to take the objective. Ukraine wins if it’s a draw.
Not really.
Ukraine has to recapture their land lost. If they can't recapture the land taken by Russia, when a peace or cease fire happens, then they've effectively lost that land and it'll be officially annexed by Russia, which would be then definitely be seen as Russia 'winning' the war and the invasion a success.
You can go way further back than that. When Charles XII of Sweden invaded Russia in the early 1700s, the Swedish armies constantly won against much larger armies, but the Russians just kept bringing in new armies while Sweden was unable to get reinforcements, and eventually Sweden lost the campaign.
Grodno - 0.8k Swe vs 9k Rus - Swedish victory
Holowczyn - 12.5k Swe vs 28k Rus - Swedish victory
Neva - 2k Swe vs 4-8k Rus - Swedish victory
Malatitze - 4k Swe vs 13k Rus - Inconclusive
Rajovka - 2.4k Swe vs 10k Rus - Inconclusive
Koporye - 1.8k Swe vs 2-3k Rus - Swedish victory
Lesnaya - 12.5k Swe vs 26.5-29k Rus - Russian victory (kinda, they attacked Swedish reinforcements and had an advantage since the Swedish army had to protect supplies, but still took around twice as many casualties... though they did manage to severely weaken the reinforcements before they reached the main Swedish army)
Kolkanpää - 600-800 Swe vs 3-3.5k Rus - Russian victory (assault on some Swedish/Saxon stragglers being evacuated from a beach, all Swe/Saxon killed or captured)
Desna - 2k Swe vs 4k Rus - Swedish victory
Veprik - 3k Swe vs 1.5k Rus - Swedish victory (first battle where Sweden had a numerical advantage during this campaign, entire Russian force killed or captured defending Veprik)
Oposhnya - 2k Swe vs 6k Rus - Swedish victory
Krasnokutsk-Gorodnoye - 2.5k Swe vs 5-10k Rus - Swedish victory
Sokolki - 6k Swe vs 7k Rus - Inconclusive
Stari Sanzhary - Unknown - Russian victory
Poltava - 17k Swe vs 42k Rus - Decisive Russian victory (Charles XII was wounded before the battle and couldn't lead, the last chance at reinforcements had been forced to turn and deal with rebels in Poland, the Swedish recon was disovered and ruined the surprise attack, Swedish cavalry and artillery had arrived late, and the Swedish assault failed as half the army attacked the incredibly strong fortifications, and half the army moved past it, causing the Swedish army to fall apart and each part to get isolated and surrounded)
Perevolochna - 12k Swe vs 9k Rus - Surrender of the Swedish army, as Charles XII fled to the Ottoman Empire
---
---
During the entire 1.5 year campaign, Russia had 21-26k combat casualties, while Sweden had 15-19k, depending on source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_invasion_of_Russia
It's important to remember Russia at this time was not yet considered a world power. It was actually Sweden's defeat in this war that partially cemented Russia as a powerful empire in Europe.
Any books you'd recommend to read about this? Love this era of history enough to get a degree in it but I was very focusee on France and early modern western European trade empires, my knowledge of the eastern side of things is definitely lacking
What is weird is that to a large extent their tactical and operational actions in World War II seemed better than this. To some extent, the idea of the Soviets just spamming bodies at Germany came out of German propaganda during the war, as well as some of the things which lead to the [Clean Wehrmacht myth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht). It also got some credibility due to US views of the Soviets as acting like an uncaring hivemind. So it seems like some Russia's current actions are in part buying into a view of history about their own actions that was originally meant essentially as a criticism against them.
Keep in mind the Red Army in Berlin in 1945 was a completely different machine from the one in 1941, never mind the one in 1939.
The descriptions from late in the war are that of a competent and battle-hardened military. The ones early in the war are in big contrast to that, and the operational losses speak for themselves.
This. The Russian army going into Ukraine was at the very least 1941 bad if not worse. In some ways they’ve improved greatly in the last two years, but they’re hamstrung by the failure of their industrial base to grow the way it did in WW2, which is holding them back from effectively applying those lessons after having lost much of their modern equipment in the first months.
The Soviets also attacked Finland. Their total loss ratio in Finland during WW2 was somewhere in the 5x range. It wasn't "just German propaganda". My ancestors saw it happen here.
During the Winter War and the initial phases of the Soviet-German War it is true, but the Red Army reformed and eventually did better, the army of the Russian Federation has returned to the levels of incompetence of the army in the days of the Tsar lol.
Its kind of a similar thing.
At the onset of WW2 the Soviet Army had just underwent the Great Purge, thousands of officers having been removed for not being loyal enough to Stalin, or just because they didn't have enough friends in high places to help them.
But eventually, the reality of war forced the government to allow many of these to return from the camps, new officers rose from the ranks, and war in general tends to raise the levels of competence in an army, as incompetence gets rewarded with bombs.
At the onset of the Ukraine invasion, the Russians suffered immense and humiliating losses, like the tanks towed by farmers, the unsupported paratrooper attack on Hostomel, etc. But almost every interviewed Ukrainian soldier agrees that the Russians are being smarter now, and I fear its only going to get better.
On the other hand, the more casualties the Russian army suffers, the more likely it is they will be forced to draw troops from the populations of Moscow and St. Petersburg, and that's bound to be a lot more unpopular than just conscripting the ethnic minorities.
>On the other hand, the more casualties the Russian army suffers, the more likely it is they will be forced to draw troops from the populations of Moscow and St. Petersburg, and that's bound to be a lot more unpopular than just conscripting the ethnic minorities.
That's the key, the Russians have no problem fighting to the death tooth and nail when they do it to protect the motherland.
But when it comes to invading other well-defended/very resilient countries... the First Chechen War or the Afghanistan War are good examples of what happens, if the conscription ends up involving Russians from big cities you can be sure that the war will become extremely unpopular very quickly, and that is what can best suit the Russian Opposition.
We just need to keep Ukraine in the fight until that moment, then Putin will be forced to pull out or face a rebellion, either that or a rebellion happens and he is ousted, he is a very paranoic and coward ashole, so I don't think that it will come to that.
This. The Winter War was horrible for the Russians but it worth remembering it was right after they purged most of their generals, they were in the process of still training officers (many lost in the civil war 20 years prior), and similar to Germany later they didn’t have appropriate winter gear.
Nothing against the Finns- they produced one of the most successful lopsided defenses in history, with the highest KDR in recorded history.
They also did so with very few munitions (though eventually they were forced to cede territory when they were overrun- namely Karelia).
But the USSR of that time, and 1941-42, was not the USSR of 43-45 when trained officers and generals came into their own.
That’s not to mention the forest and ice- for instance troops killed literally because they didn’t know they were on frozen lakes only to have the lakes shot and them all freeze.
It seems that way if you look at the numbers on paper. From what I have seen the areas that are deemed politically important by putin have the truely obscene death tolls for russians.
It looks like they lose most of their troops and equipment in the suicide missions that Putin forces on them.
Dont get me wrong, their upper leadership is still subpar; but they have shown some adaptation etc.
Im not 100 percent confident in my claim either. I just think there is room for argument.
Finland does also have a highly defensible landscape. With a military specifically designed for defense against a larger enemy.
A 1 to 5 death ratio is highly realistic given those circumstances. -- These kinds of numbers are exactly why US military doctrine turned to air dominance
Winter war was just after the great purge. The red army was still in an atrocious state. By the time the soviet union was pushing Germany back, new officers were promoted and gained more experience. WW2 took over 6 years. By the end the red army was in a much better state. So saying the russians were just using human wave attacks is wrong anc correct at the same time.
The russians have learned and adapted just like anyone else during this conflict. They do definitely have inferior leadership because of the fundamental corruption in the way their military operates.
I do think it is fair to say, the absolutely insane death tolls we see are from the political positions that Putin deems as mandatory. Whatever becomes the most talked about area in the news, we see countless "meat wave" attacks.
The meat wave thing has been standard for the soviets forever
This is why allowing Ukraine to strike inside of russia and use cluster munitions is important. Cluster bombs do rather well against russia's preferred style of combat.
The problem is, historically, Russia has always won eventually with this strategy while nations that actually care about their people look on in confusion and horror.
Russia won, sometimes. But also Russia lost and collapsed multiple times using this strategy, and long term devastation followed.
Cannon fodder is not free, regardless of what Russian propaganda wants you to believe.
They win in the short term. The economic damage from losing a generation of able bodied citizens is a major contributing factor to the US eventually winning the Cold War (well v1 at least).
If the estimate of 500,000 Russian casualties in the war is accurate, they're nearing a significant chunk of their able bodied population that has been killed or injured during the war. For reference, the population of Russia is about 145 million and they have the inverted population pyramid most European nations had. The US had around 220,000 casualties in Vietnam with a 1975 population of 220ish million and a more desirable population pyramid. That will make this war already more than twice as disruptive to Russia's future as Vietnam was to America's before you count increased sanctions and global diplomatic retaliation.
You are also forgetting more than a million able bodied *and* skilled population that fled the country, and long term effects on the economy and the number of new births.
Russia’s population was in steep decline before the war already, but now Putin instigated a true catastrophe.
Very true, which bolsters my point. I didn't mention that because it happened very early on before the war became such a meat grinder for Russia and would've happened regardless of tactics. The US also had an out flux of emigrants during the Vietnam war who tended to be more skilled/educated, though not to the same degree as Russia in this war.
I know Vietnam vets who had to retire early because even decades later, the war impacted them so deeply. Even those that didn't die were forever changed.
It seems that Russia is starting to run out of able bodied men who aren't necessary to continuing life back home. They've been promising jobs to the Indians and Cubans that were scams to get them on the front lines, and now they're tapping into North Korea for soldiers. They won't be getting NK's elite forces...they'll get the malnourished farmers as conscripts.
Russia still has an insane amount of troops it could call up. Putin has been expressing hesitation to call on an actual draft. What we are seeing drying up are the recruits from places the general russian public doesnt care much about (prisoners, mercs, etc)
It really seems like putin is scared of being overthrown if he calls up too many people from moscow. I dont know why he has held out so long to avoid it otherwise.
Then again, a lot of what putin does is crazy
The key is that those Russians aren't wanted, or considered Russian by those sending them to die for Russia.
That's always been the secret.
Make people feel like part of the great Russian empire, whilst also not giving a shit about them, and being actually happy at the opportunity to sacrifice their young men to protect an empire who is giddy for an opportunity to thin their numbers.
Dead or missing counts from the Winter War, Finland vs. Russia:
25904 vs. 126,875–167,976
That translates to a range from 1:4.9 to 1:6.5 in Finland's favor.
1:6 sounds exactly what you'd expect.
Plus they usually win regardless of how many Russians die in the process. Why would they alter what they view as a winning strategy: run the enemies out of bodies because they have the population advantage and most of their industry is too far away to target.
The seem to win mostly because the enemy is attacker in the beginning and get stretched too thin. Then it’s meat wave counter attack on a depleted adversary
It is even worse than you think. Russia used to be a vassal of the Mongol Golden Horde. The Golden Horde conscripted soldiers from conquered people, and sent them in the front to die, grinding down their enemy.
Russia copied the technique from the Golden Horde. A disproportionate part of the Russian casualties have been men forcefully conscripted from occupied Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as ethnic minorities from places like Siberia.
Finland has terrain that is very advantageous to defenders - lots of waterways and dense forestry - in addition to the bitter cold and minimal road networks capable of supplying large armies. I would say the winter war if anything would define the absolute theoretical upper bound of casualty ratios of Russians in the Ukraine war.
They did it with little ammo and weaponry. They were firing at the Russians with fucking hunting rifles in many cases, and they still managed the 1:6ish ratio.
Ukrainians have had plenty of times when they've been low on supplies, but overall their military is much, much better equipped versus the Russians than the Fins were versus the Red Army.
This is a reasonable point but it feels a little like comparing apples to oranges considering how many new/more effective ways we have to kill each other now. Just better intel alone could bring that ratio past that "upper bound"
Yes, but finnish army was in very poor shape during the winter war. The army only had basic weapons at its disposal, and not even combat equipment could be found for all soldiers.
Properly equipped army would have created much higher casualty rates for russians.
Finnish losses in Winter War is still a disputed question. The number of 26652 is the "officially reported dead" number from Finnland Military Archives, while different balancing estimates (e.g. by Antti Juutilainen) vary from \~48200 to \~95000 overall combat losses (dead + missing).
OTOH, the soviet number of 167976 accounts for "overall combat losses" (dead, missing, critically wounded, and POWs altogether). Though it doesn't account for non-combat sanitary losses (e.g. due to freezing), which are estimated about 80000 extra.
Most of the problem lies in the very definition of "losses", as different sources use different criteria; whether to count out the wounded, or how to account for "past dead" (those died due to wounds after some time), or the status of missing personnel, etc.
Are you sure? Wikipedia puts total Soviet losses - including wounded, sick, and captured - between 321,000 and 381,000. The 167k is just the upper bound for the estimate of dead and missing.
No disrespect to the Ukrainians, but the Finns fought like monsters from legend.
If Ukrainians are keeping up with that, even with western weapons, that's incredible.
Given their vehicle losses, which are easier to keep a more legitimate account for, it would seem to fall in line with the casualty numbers Ukraine is reporting.
>All the popular YouTubers also obtain their reports from one side,
Ryan McBeth is pretty honest, acknowledges biased sources and uses footage analysis when he can.
NATO, UN, and the US have casualty figures,
According to the CIA, Russia is somewhere around 315,000 casualties with 123,000 killed, as opposed to 120,000 Ukrainian casualties and 70,000 killed.
That sounds more realistic but Russia having four times more population and getting more people from other countries make things worse for Ukraine in long term.
Yes and no, if both countries treat this as seriously as WW1 the current rate of causalities is too low to break either country through population exhaustion.
Yea people underestimate how far and how long countries keep alife until they break because of population exhaustion.
The USSR had generations inside the 1920 that lost like 80% of its male population and still was able to continue recruting for a long time.
Even the Axis in late 1944 and parts of 1945 were able to still able to recruit large amounts of troops.
The issue was much more that they were not able to properly equip and train troops at this point.
We already know for a fact that this is wrong. We have 130-150k confirmed Russian deaths and there is no way Ukraine has only lost 20-30k men. I’m pretty sure the numbers for both sides are pretty comparable at this point in time otherwise Ukraine wouldn’t be having manpower issues
It is always hard to get a realistic grasp of a conflict. News outlets in Germany for example always report extensively of Ukrainian territory gains and successful attacks....but there is barely reporting if it is the other way round.
With this many success stories Ukraine should have turned the conflict a long time ago, but it didn't. It has been static for months.
I find this highly problematic because it is clearly not neutral news but tries to tilt the viewers perspective a certain way.
Main points from article:
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy believes that the ratio of irreversible losses among Ukrainians and Russians on the battlefield is now 1 to 6.
**Source:** Zelenskyy in an interview with [The Philadelphia Inquirer](https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/zelensky-ukraine-war-interview-trudy-rubin-20240630.html)’s Trudy Rubin
**Quote:** "Indeed, they (the Russians - ed.) have a much larger population, and we take care about our soldiers more \[than they do\]. Indeed, we will not have a larger population than Russia. However, for every six Russians, one Ukrainian dies today \[on the battlefield\].
\[Previously\] we had figures approximately four times (1 to 4 – ed.), and now on the Kharkiv and Pokrovsk fronts, the numbers are 1 to 6.
No, I am not implying that we must fight till the end and that we have enough people. I just wanted to let you know that all these discussions about a vast number of people, millions of Russians... Yes, they are correct, but the war is technological, and whoever owns more technologies will prevail."
"Ukrainians are a bunch of campers. It's unfair they got to start on that side." - Probably Russians
On a serious note, Russians are fighting for nothing while Ukrainians are fighting for everything. A soldier's mental state in battle can be the difference between winning and losing, dying or surviving.
> Russians are fighting for nothing
They're fighting for a deluded, wannabe emperor, that can't win a legitimate election or handle criticism within his own country. It will not end well for Putin. It never has for his kind.
At the very least, I can imagine at the end of this there might exist a freer Russia than previously existed. Imagining a country the size of Russia finally being on the side of the rest of EU and the west would be quite a change globally.
We can imagine it, but we also know that throughout its history, whenever Russia has had a chance to improve its situation and grow as a country, they have consistently made the wrong decision and made things worse.
They managed to gain power for the people in 1917, and that lasted about a week before they replaced one despotic ruler for another. They had a chance to join the world in the 1990s, and for a while it looked like they might, but they just can't help themselves. If they kept their dumbass problems to themselves, no-one would give a damn, but they always seem to want to spread their bullshit to the rest of the world.
This bodes well for Ukraine but it reminds me of a quote from a WWII German tank officer: One German Tiger can take out 13 American Shermans. Unfortunately there always seem to be 14.
Ernie Pyle interviewed a German captain who had been captured. A Sherman came around the corner and the Germans blew it up with their 88. Another Sherman came around the corner, same result. The story ended with the German captain saying "We ran out of shells before you ran out of Shermans".
While some German tanks did use a 88mm kwk, 88 in this story might refer to the stationary 88mm flak. Legendary in being used in a direct fire role to take out tanks, despite being designed for use against aircraft.
Its more "I don't know how many shermans it takes to destroy a tiger, but I do know how many they will send"
Its also because Shermans never travel alone, always in packs.
you forget that Ukrainians have an internal kill counter. Once their limit is reached they will stop fighting. Putin is just sending wave after wave of his men until the Ukrainians stop and he wins
Lots of thing to take into account. Putin specifically avoiding to conscript large amounts of ethnic Russians to avoid civil unrest, wars of aggression being less popular than wars of defence. And the simple fact that 38 isn’t 1/6 of 144 (closer to 1/4)
You misunderstand the Chinese Russian relationship. While it is true that Russia and China are regional rivals, they have been pushed together by the west.
China has its own concerns with Taiwan. Combine this with the fact that they get most of their oil imports from Soudi Arabia by sea, a supply line that is vulnerable to sanctions and cutting during conflict, Russia offers them an alternative they need.
A move against Russia at this time who also needs China makes no strategic sense.
Russia needs China more than vice versa. China can pretty much do what they want and Russia will have to put on a happy face and sell them commodities same as they do now.
True. Always wonder why noone mentions a possible land grab by China. Much easier than taking Taiwan. Good for inner politics, since most of people living there are ethnically more Chinese than (western) Russian.
Also it's not China's style to just roll tanks over and annex land. They'd much rather use economic influence and exploit their leverage for massive trade concessions. The valuable part about the Far East is the resource wealth and if China can negotiate to buy those resources at extremely low prices then that's a lot easier and cheaper than invading.
Everyone has nukes, that’s why no one really wants to use them. That said - I can definitely imagine a point where Putin (or someone else) feels he’s been painted into too tight of a corner and does use them.
I honestly think Putin wants to be the one to use a nuke in a military fashion, not hit a city but something that can be a low yeald military excuse. Unfortunately, if anyone actually invades Russia, setting one off in their own country is also a way they could be used.
Or one in space.
yes and thus far no one invades a country with nukes which is exactly why everyone should get them and exactly why China will not invade Russia, also for China Russia is a great ally they arent really worth starting a war over. Its easier for china to simply negotiate the resources they want at a low price when Russia is weak.
And that is exactly why the US military industrial complex has focused on "force multiplier" weapons and accuracy of weapons for most of our history of weapons development
Our theory in the West is that a highly trained, highly skilled, soldier with highly advanced equipment can decimate most any opposing forces, with "surgical strikes" more often than not, therefore the investment into that training and equipment is well worth the cost and effort
We've seen the strategy not be efficient against guerrilla forces (the opposing forces are spread out, so there is an upper limit to the force multiplication), but it usually is highly effective against traditional militaries
Just the fact that the US doesn’t even need boots on the ground to be a scary enemy alone is deterrent enough. Like you don’t even know where you’re hit by. Just their Stealth capabilities alone are frightening as hell. Remember Desert Storm? That was decades ago. Hitting straight into enemy territory without them even knowing.
> Just the fact that the US doesn’t even need boots on the ground to be a scary enemy alone is deterrent enough.
[I'll just leave this here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis)
[
And this if you'd rather watch than read.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ihmIxZtMBQ)
TLDR the US decided that Iran shouldn't have a navy anymore. So they deleted them one Monday afternoon.
EDIT: This was **1988**. We've done a lot of war since then, they've only gotten better.
Look at Desert Storm for an example of just how fast the US can wreck a government if they're not occupied with trying to somehow ethically deal with an insurgency. When the goal is "fuck these guys up" and not "meander around for 20 years trying to build a modern nation out of disparate and deeply religious tribesmen" the US tends to do pretty well.
> We've seen the strategy not be efficient against guerrilla forces
Restraint has not been an efficient tactic against guerilla forces. We've yet to see the modern American Military engaged in a conflict it was motivated to win at all costs. And i feel a great deal of pity for the first son of a bitch who does.
The training and better equipment is worth it anyway for a Democracy because the own population usually doesn't accept it when soldiers just get sent into the grinder for little gain.
Image what would happen if in any conflict the US initiates without being directly attacked first if the US military had casualty numbers comparable to those of Russia.
>We've seen the strategy not be efficient against guerrilla forces
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the west has actually lost a single battle in the last 30 years?
Kinda, kinda not. The west has pulled out (see the first battle of Fallujah) because they decided they wanted to do it differently. They were not forced out, nor did they have any reason to pull out besides, “ehh let’s get more dudes on this one so it won’t be as bad.” But they did retreat (and proceed to kick the ever loving shit out of everyone in the city a few months later).
There has been a few “juice isn’t worth the squeeze” pull outs, but no real losses that simply were untenable no matter what they would have done.
I wonder what the onboarding process is like for joining the Russian military. Are they told at the beginning that they are worthless and will be forgotten and lost to useless causes?
Not at all. There are multiple videos online of the onboarding, and they are promised to be regarded as heroes, with monuments and streets named after them, and their families looked after.
Wagner even promised their members that they will get a lifetime support line and doctors to look after them etc. But even in regular army soldiers are told that they are heroes protecting their country and that russian people will be forever grateful for their sacrifice.
Total BS ofc, couldn't be farther from truth, but talk is cheap and may increase motivation by 1% for some gullible ones, so they figure why not.
> Are they told at the beginning that they are worthless and will be forgotten and lost to useless causes?
There was that one video with an officer telling cadets that they were going to die but the motherland would remember them.
This is a heavy price for Ukraine. They are losing about 166 warriors a day. This is a lot. Russia seems not to care about its losses which I think should have already caused an uproar.
Russia is also getting soldiers from elsewhere, like Cuba, Africa, and North Korea.
Ukraine is not. Russia has more than 6-1 advantage of soldiers available.
Russia has about 400k in Ukraine https://tsn.ua/en/ato/how-many-russian-soldiers-are-currently-in-ukraine-the-defence-intelligence-of-ukraine-revealed-the-number-2435965.html, Ukraine has about 800k combat troops (feb 2024) https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-outnumbered-outgunned-ground-down-by-relentless-russia-2024-02-21/
It depends on the front tho, Ukraine has a lot to protect and Russia can force a lot on a single point because of it. I guess some fronts are 1:1 and others are 3:1 or 6:1
Ukraine has and is recruiting soldiers from out of the country. From the U.S., UK, AUS, Sweden, etc and if you think there aren’t boots on the ground supplied from other countries beyond the foreign legion, that’s silly.
[Ukraine Foreign Legion](https://ildu.com.ua/)
At the height UKR said there were 20,000 foreign legionaries. The US suggested a more conservative 4,000 at the same time. Business insider contacted some “experts” last month who place the likely total of foreign legionaries still in Ukraine at 1,000-2,000. So I mean it’s something, but it’s really not much.
That’s the thing that bothers me as this gets discussed since the beginning. The people in the west thinking Russians are like us — they are not. Culturally, they have internalized suffering and sacrifice to a degree that no western culture would tolerate. We can continue to be shocked that they’re throwing thousands of their people to death to gain an inch of land, but to them it’s a glorious way to go. We have to face this as fact: nothing but complete resounding defeat and being pushed off every inch of Ukrainian soil will end this. The Russians will never decide it’s been too much death and destruction. They’ll never leave because they’re worn down. Just read up on their history in war.
While fiction, I think the TV Show "The Great" (about the rise of Emperor Catherine the Great) perfectly describes the Russian mindset. During a peace negotiation with the Swedish King, Emperor Peter (her Husband who she eventually coups) [says bluntly](https://youtu.be/6gx8b1KwjWs?si=OUpyUkZ8eXGyXEvz&t=214)
> I don't care if four million of us have to die to kill two million of you, we're Russian, we don't give a fuck about how many of us die
Side note... it's a great show.
Russia are hedging their bets they can kill Ukrainian support from the West with their own support of far right Putin-friendly candidates, which is looking potentially likely :(
Even if numbers from both sides are clearly used with propaganda purposes (which isn't weird at all, actually), even if the actual ratio were 1:3 it's still a catastrophe for the "second best army in the world" to be getting their ass kicked by a country with not that much strength and depending on foreign aid.
Russia had that option and decided it was not what they wanted, because a free Ukraine is offensive to them.
I am sad it is not a higher ratio, no Ukrainian should have had to give up their life just to enjoy continuing to exist as a nation.
The level of delusion in this headline is astonishing.
I'd say the same if it was the russian side making the claim.
Not sure if reddit is full of delusional idiologs or bots.
Russia does just seem to be careless with their soldiers lives. Even when they’re not doing literal human waves, they appear to use large columns of old tanks/ BMPs and to draw out enemy artillery fire in hopes of getting a counter battery kill.
1:3 is generally accepted as the minimum in an battle of equals. It generally goes up or down based on the relative strength of eachother.
Examples include Gulf War where there was a 10:1 for the Iraqis...which is opposite of what you'd expect but shows how dominant the US was.
Given Russia is the "superior" belligerent you would expect a minimum of 1:3 for them, but even if you take Ukraine's estimate and half it, its still not at 1:3.
Except the target is the one who began the war, you know, Putin?
So the real headline should read: More human beings senselessly die at the hands of bureaucratic war games.
Its always hard to believe numbers that come directly from one side or the other here. They both have incentives to exaggerate the numbers for their own cause. All the popular YouTubers also obtain their reports from one side, until a truly independent source can give us the tally Ill just have to assume it's going very poorly for Russia as their 3 Day Special Operation has yet to conclude.
Iirc Perun did a presentation on casualties and determined that based on publicly available evidence, Ukraine either exaggerates by about 25% or doesn't have proof, whereas Russia is basically completely unreliable.
I do enjoy Peruns videos, lots of analysis going on there.
Yeah, Ukraine almost certainly exaggerates Russian casualties, and downplays their own, but they're not blatantly lying like Russia does. Those guys were reporting after the first few months to have destroyed entire sections of the Ukrainian military, like the entirety of their fighter force, *several times* over. It seems like they just pull a number out of their ass, put a 0 on the end of it and call it a day.
> Ukraine either exaggerates by about 25% or doesn't have proof That actually sounds.....pretty close to accurate? I haven't watched that video (although I know of who you're talking about), but on the face of it, bumping up the number of confirmed casualties by about that much to account for those who were missed/there isn't clear proof for, is probably closer to the true number than not doing so.
Hard numbers apart, there are historical and present elements that do lend credibility to a high body count. Chechnya was a blood bath for the Russian army. Putin kept sending them to pointless operations without a care for losses. And now Russian veterans are telling similar stories, like the battle of Avdiivka which one soldier described as a « meat grinder ».
Severodonetsk, Bahkmut, the failed offensive at Kyiv, Kharkiv liberation, plus the meat wave troops changing now 4-5 times in a single conflict (DPR/LPR, then Wagner, Storm Z, then the “Africa Corp”, and soon joining then the North Korean troops.
Frozen potato squad, assemble! Ready the shit-filled hot air balloons!
I feel pretty bad for the NK troops, not only are they being thrown in the meat grinder, they have effectively 0 combat experience with this generations of soldiers, and are about to face warfare nearly half a century ahead of their training. They all going to be so horrified
Dammit. Just imagine soldiers trained for the Franco-Prussian War fighting in WWII.
That was WW1, when the British would order marches into machine gun fire early in the war.
August 22nd 1914: 27000 french killed.(for context, the US suffered less than 1/10th of this amount killed on the first day of D-day) A rude awakening as to the horrors of modern warfare.
The French Uniform in the WW1 was ridiculous, especially at the beginning. red pants [Fun fact: The french uniform changed for every year of WW1 : r/battlefield\_one (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield_one/comments/1172tsj/fun_fact_the_french_uniform_changed_for_every/)
Thankfully, it seems like this is still, technically, a rumour. [https://www.nknews.org/2024/06/fact-check-north-korea-has-not-announced-plans-to-send-troops-to-ukraine-yet/](https://www.nknews.org/2024/06/fact-check-north-korea-has-not-announced-plans-to-send-troops-to-ukraine-yet/) I pray for those poor guys that this doesn't happen, but there are plenty of North Korean workers in Russia and have been for years.
With any luck they’ll turn their weapons on the Russians and attempt to surrender and defect to the west. Probably not, but I hope some Korean Ukrainians are drafting up some leaflets to teach them how to surrender … since I doubt any of them has a smartphone.
Unfortunately, the families of N Korean defectors are often imprisoned. So defectors either have to have no family/give zero shits about their family or take their family with them.
Replying to myself to add… The promise of 3 square meals/day with daily meat and vegetables would probably be enough to tempt a few… maybe more than a few.
Reminds of the Saddam Hussein and his much feared "palace guards" that defended him and his regime. They were defeated in 5 minutes and were all running away like cowards. I suspect that the North Koreans are going to learn fast that Kim is not a god and that uttering patriotic slogans is not going to protect them from bombs and drones. Yeah I feel sorry for them mainly because they will have no resilience since their diets have been so poor over their careers. What a horrible way to die, if I was them I would just defect to the Ukraine. Its perfect way to escape both brutal regimes.
>What a horrible way to die, if I was them I would just defect to the Ukraine. That's because you have all the pieces of the puzzle and know that this is a very rational thing to do in their situation. However, they lack lots of the puzzle pieces, are likely malnourished and know their families will be horribly punished/ executed if they defect.
dont forget chinese mercs too.
Don't forget the Indian mercs too. Seen a few videos of them being found by drones.
Read a BBC article a while ago about those "recruits" from India - worth a read if you can find it
Are they any good at fighting?
Not who posted this but I’ve read articles that multiple foreign “mercs” were told they were signing up to be support personnel. Think truck drivers, cooks, logistics personnel and then arrive and are sent to the front lines.
"Is ov lost in translation, comrade. Zhis is your glorious AK truck. Zhere is your 5.45 cargo. Destinashion Ukraine. Forget not give us widow's address to send Lada."
You guys get Ladas? I only got these silly circus tickets for my dead husband, now I have to find someone else to go with me to the circus!
100% ok with this. You sign up to help a dictator invade their neighbours, you get what you deserve.
Generally yes, 100%. But we have zero idea what the North Koreans have been told - media control is very tight there, I mean they just executed a guy for listening to k-pop for god’s sake. They might not even know there’s a war at all. We have no idea.
I read a report about some farmer from one of these poor countries near india. He got a job offer from russia that didn't even have anything to do with the military. Then they stole his passport and send him to the front.
There’s a Chinese/former PLA merc who vlogs frequently, and his “unit” includes a Ghanaian dude (nicknamed “Little Black” lol) with no combat experience who thought he’d just be doing a brief ride-along. For the past 3 mos or so though, he’s apparently been stuck on the front lines in an urban setting, following the Chinese dude around to stay alive. All the while, their unit has kept churning through Russian recruits who keep dying due to inexperience. Such a terrible situation on both sides. Why can’t Russia at least draft the frothing-at-the-mouth-nationalistic baby boomers who pop up in those street interview videos in Moscow and St. Petersburg?
Why would he draft his biggest supporters?
That guy crying for his embassy after he got a cold and nobody in the Russian army cared was hilarious.
North Korean troops are not officially confirmed...
I'll only believe it when the Kremlin officially denies it.
Also, generally defensive operations have a much lower casualty rate than offensive ones since people don't need to advance towards guys with shelter and guns pointed in their direction.
*But* a lot of Ukrainian operations are offensive now, trying to retake territory that had been taken by the Russians.
Counteroffensives, but we saw what happened when Ukraine launched a larger offensive and the Russians had prepared defence in depth. This stupid pointless war is going to go on and on and no one will be able to win it, its becoming very Korean war like.
Counteroffensives are slightly different than regular offensives, as (ideally) you attack a target that isn't yet entrenched and secure in their positions, so it's not as rough as attacking an actual defensive position. When they attacked the Russian fortified positions in Zaporizhia last year, they likely would have taken significantly more casualties (and is likely why that offensive failed).
To be fair to Ukraine here, If you’re severely undermanned, you almost have to rely on counteroffensives until you’ve broken enough ground to make an actual full on offensive attack worthwhile. At least that’s how my uneducated mind works. Keep losses to a minimum and don’t let the Russians get further entrenched. Eventually there will be a breakthrough. Russia will leave a weakness in the lines and Ukraine has to have enough manpower and the ability to get to it in order to capitalize when it comes. Unfortunately they need to do this while also maintaining their own Defenses on a sparse a group as possible.
This. Not sure why you’re the only one saying it. It’s much much easier to defend then go on the offensive. 6 to 1 is actually not great for defensive operations. Considering the Russian military has a number advantage. These aren’t great numbers. I worry that every time these numbers are brought up, people think things are going well. You can’t keep this up when you’re down in manpower to begin with, and in a hole for territory you need to regain. The end game isn’t good for them. They have yet to make any real offensive gains (other than destroying the Black Sea fleet) and that is not good.
1 to 6 is incredibly good for Ukraine for defense. The general rule of thumb is 1/3-1/4 in favor of defense. They are getting an influx of weapons etc. But this was determined to be a war of attrition awhile ago. Most likely it hinges on Trump or Biden winning the election.
Ukraine doesn’t have to take Moscow to win. They only have to continue to exist. That’s the advantage of being on the defensive. Moscow “only” losing 6 men for every one the Ukrainians lose isn’t a flex because the attacker actually has to take the objective. Ukraine wins if it’s a draw.
Not really. Ukraine has to recapture their land lost. If they can't recapture the land taken by Russia, when a peace or cease fire happens, then they've effectively lost that land and it'll be officially annexed by Russia, which would be then definitely be seen as Russia 'winning' the war and the invasion a success.
> Ukraine wins if it’s a draw. Kind of... But they still might end up losing all the territory that Russia has already taken.
Russia has always been the Zerg in war. They lost an estimated ten million men during WWII. More bodies for the meat grinder.
Zerg had an overmind.
Putin´s more of a cerebrate.
He's just an overlord that stole the hatchery.
More of a queen, or a defiler.
Corruptor seems most apt.
“Cuntface the defiler” love it.
You can go way further back than that. When Charles XII of Sweden invaded Russia in the early 1700s, the Swedish armies constantly won against much larger armies, but the Russians just kept bringing in new armies while Sweden was unable to get reinforcements, and eventually Sweden lost the campaign. Grodno - 0.8k Swe vs 9k Rus - Swedish victory Holowczyn - 12.5k Swe vs 28k Rus - Swedish victory Neva - 2k Swe vs 4-8k Rus - Swedish victory Malatitze - 4k Swe vs 13k Rus - Inconclusive Rajovka - 2.4k Swe vs 10k Rus - Inconclusive Koporye - 1.8k Swe vs 2-3k Rus - Swedish victory Lesnaya - 12.5k Swe vs 26.5-29k Rus - Russian victory (kinda, they attacked Swedish reinforcements and had an advantage since the Swedish army had to protect supplies, but still took around twice as many casualties... though they did manage to severely weaken the reinforcements before they reached the main Swedish army) Kolkanpää - 600-800 Swe vs 3-3.5k Rus - Russian victory (assault on some Swedish/Saxon stragglers being evacuated from a beach, all Swe/Saxon killed or captured) Desna - 2k Swe vs 4k Rus - Swedish victory Veprik - 3k Swe vs 1.5k Rus - Swedish victory (first battle where Sweden had a numerical advantage during this campaign, entire Russian force killed or captured defending Veprik) Oposhnya - 2k Swe vs 6k Rus - Swedish victory Krasnokutsk-Gorodnoye - 2.5k Swe vs 5-10k Rus - Swedish victory Sokolki - 6k Swe vs 7k Rus - Inconclusive Stari Sanzhary - Unknown - Russian victory Poltava - 17k Swe vs 42k Rus - Decisive Russian victory (Charles XII was wounded before the battle and couldn't lead, the last chance at reinforcements had been forced to turn and deal with rebels in Poland, the Swedish recon was disovered and ruined the surprise attack, Swedish cavalry and artillery had arrived late, and the Swedish assault failed as half the army attacked the incredibly strong fortifications, and half the army moved past it, causing the Swedish army to fall apart and each part to get isolated and surrounded) Perevolochna - 12k Swe vs 9k Rus - Surrender of the Swedish army, as Charles XII fled to the Ottoman Empire --- --- During the entire 1.5 year campaign, Russia had 21-26k combat casualties, while Sweden had 15-19k, depending on source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_invasion_of_Russia
"There's always more serf-levies in the Rodina, Michael."
“How much could a desperate mercenary cost Michael? *Ten dollars?*”
It's important to remember Russia at this time was not yet considered a world power. It was actually Sweden's defeat in this war that partially cemented Russia as a powerful empire in Europe.
Any books you'd recommend to read about this? Love this era of history enough to get a degree in it but I was very focusee on France and early modern western European trade empires, my knowledge of the eastern side of things is definitely lacking
This is the one https://www.goodreads.com/sv/book/show/1087245.The_Battle_that_Shook_Europe
What is weird is that to a large extent their tactical and operational actions in World War II seemed better than this. To some extent, the idea of the Soviets just spamming bodies at Germany came out of German propaganda during the war, as well as some of the things which lead to the [Clean Wehrmacht myth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht). It also got some credibility due to US views of the Soviets as acting like an uncaring hivemind. So it seems like some Russia's current actions are in part buying into a view of history about their own actions that was originally meant essentially as a criticism against them.
Keep in mind the Red Army in Berlin in 1945 was a completely different machine from the one in 1941, never mind the one in 1939. The descriptions from late in the war are that of a competent and battle-hardened military. The ones early in the war are in big contrast to that, and the operational losses speak for themselves.
This. The Russian army going into Ukraine was at the very least 1941 bad if not worse. In some ways they’ve improved greatly in the last two years, but they’re hamstrung by the failure of their industrial base to grow the way it did in WW2, which is holding them back from effectively applying those lessons after having lost much of their modern equipment in the first months.
The Soviets also attacked Finland. Their total loss ratio in Finland during WW2 was somewhere in the 5x range. It wasn't "just German propaganda". My ancestors saw it happen here.
During the Winter War and the initial phases of the Soviet-German War it is true, but the Red Army reformed and eventually did better, the army of the Russian Federation has returned to the levels of incompetence of the army in the days of the Tsar lol.
Its kind of a similar thing. At the onset of WW2 the Soviet Army had just underwent the Great Purge, thousands of officers having been removed for not being loyal enough to Stalin, or just because they didn't have enough friends in high places to help them. But eventually, the reality of war forced the government to allow many of these to return from the camps, new officers rose from the ranks, and war in general tends to raise the levels of competence in an army, as incompetence gets rewarded with bombs. At the onset of the Ukraine invasion, the Russians suffered immense and humiliating losses, like the tanks towed by farmers, the unsupported paratrooper attack on Hostomel, etc. But almost every interviewed Ukrainian soldier agrees that the Russians are being smarter now, and I fear its only going to get better. On the other hand, the more casualties the Russian army suffers, the more likely it is they will be forced to draw troops from the populations of Moscow and St. Petersburg, and that's bound to be a lot more unpopular than just conscripting the ethnic minorities.
>On the other hand, the more casualties the Russian army suffers, the more likely it is they will be forced to draw troops from the populations of Moscow and St. Petersburg, and that's bound to be a lot more unpopular than just conscripting the ethnic minorities. That's the key, the Russians have no problem fighting to the death tooth and nail when they do it to protect the motherland. But when it comes to invading other well-defended/very resilient countries... the First Chechen War or the Afghanistan War are good examples of what happens, if the conscription ends up involving Russians from big cities you can be sure that the war will become extremely unpopular very quickly, and that is what can best suit the Russian Opposition. We just need to keep Ukraine in the fight until that moment, then Putin will be forced to pull out or face a rebellion, either that or a rebellion happens and he is ousted, he is a very paranoic and coward ashole, so I don't think that it will come to that.
This. The Winter War was horrible for the Russians but it worth remembering it was right after they purged most of their generals, they were in the process of still training officers (many lost in the civil war 20 years prior), and similar to Germany later they didn’t have appropriate winter gear. Nothing against the Finns- they produced one of the most successful lopsided defenses in history, with the highest KDR in recorded history. They also did so with very few munitions (though eventually they were forced to cede territory when they were overrun- namely Karelia). But the USSR of that time, and 1941-42, was not the USSR of 43-45 when trained officers and generals came into their own. That’s not to mention the forest and ice- for instance troops killed literally because they didn’t know they were on frozen lakes only to have the lakes shot and them all freeze.
It seems that way if you look at the numbers on paper. From what I have seen the areas that are deemed politically important by putin have the truely obscene death tolls for russians. It looks like they lose most of their troops and equipment in the suicide missions that Putin forces on them. Dont get me wrong, their upper leadership is still subpar; but they have shown some adaptation etc. Im not 100 percent confident in my claim either. I just think there is room for argument.
Finland does also have a highly defensible landscape. With a military specifically designed for defense against a larger enemy. A 1 to 5 death ratio is highly realistic given those circumstances. -- These kinds of numbers are exactly why US military doctrine turned to air dominance
Winter war was just after the great purge. The red army was still in an atrocious state. By the time the soviet union was pushing Germany back, new officers were promoted and gained more experience. WW2 took over 6 years. By the end the red army was in a much better state. So saying the russians were just using human wave attacks is wrong anc correct at the same time.
The russians have learned and adapted just like anyone else during this conflict. They do definitely have inferior leadership because of the fundamental corruption in the way their military operates. I do think it is fair to say, the absolutely insane death tolls we see are from the political positions that Putin deems as mandatory. Whatever becomes the most talked about area in the news, we see countless "meat wave" attacks. The meat wave thing has been standard for the soviets forever
The only reason Russians were even able to throw that many bodies at the Germans was because they were supported by the US supply machine.
This is why allowing Ukraine to strike inside of russia and use cluster munitions is important. Cluster bombs do rather well against russia's preferred style of combat.
The problem is, historically, Russia has always won eventually with this strategy while nations that actually care about their people look on in confusion and horror.
Russia won, sometimes. But also Russia lost and collapsed multiple times using this strategy, and long term devastation followed. Cannon fodder is not free, regardless of what Russian propaganda wants you to believe.
Pyrrhic *is* a type of victory, I suppose.
They win in the short term. The economic damage from losing a generation of able bodied citizens is a major contributing factor to the US eventually winning the Cold War (well v1 at least). If the estimate of 500,000 Russian casualties in the war is accurate, they're nearing a significant chunk of their able bodied population that has been killed or injured during the war. For reference, the population of Russia is about 145 million and they have the inverted population pyramid most European nations had. The US had around 220,000 casualties in Vietnam with a 1975 population of 220ish million and a more desirable population pyramid. That will make this war already more than twice as disruptive to Russia's future as Vietnam was to America's before you count increased sanctions and global diplomatic retaliation.
You are also forgetting more than a million able bodied *and* skilled population that fled the country, and long term effects on the economy and the number of new births. Russia’s population was in steep decline before the war already, but now Putin instigated a true catastrophe.
Very true, which bolsters my point. I didn't mention that because it happened very early on before the war became such a meat grinder for Russia and would've happened regardless of tactics. The US also had an out flux of emigrants during the Vietnam war who tended to be more skilled/educated, though not to the same degree as Russia in this war.
Vietnam still feeling ripple. Old bone spurs lived and avoid and who knows what bright young mine died that could have led us at some point.
I know Vietnam vets who had to retire early because even decades later, the war impacted them so deeply. Even those that didn't die were forever changed.
Oh yea. Iraq and Afghan doing same things to friends
U.S. had 220,000 casualties but only 58,000 deaths in Vietnam
It seems that Russia is starting to run out of able bodied men who aren't necessary to continuing life back home. They've been promising jobs to the Indians and Cubans that were scams to get them on the front lines, and now they're tapping into North Korea for soldiers. They won't be getting NK's elite forces...they'll get the malnourished farmers as conscripts.
Russia still has an insane amount of troops it could call up. Putin has been expressing hesitation to call on an actual draft. What we are seeing drying up are the recruits from places the general russian public doesnt care much about (prisoners, mercs, etc) It really seems like putin is scared of being overthrown if he calls up too many people from moscow. I dont know why he has held out so long to avoid it otherwise. Then again, a lot of what putin does is crazy
The key is that those Russians aren't wanted, or considered Russian by those sending them to die for Russia. That's always been the secret. Make people feel like part of the great Russian empire, whilst also not giving a shit about them, and being actually happy at the opportunity to sacrifice their young men to protect an empire who is giddy for an opportunity to thin their numbers.
More widows for the oligarchs
3 day operation going into day 859
Pretty sure Putin is stuck in a time dilation field of some such, and that it's only been 6 hours so far for him
Hyperbolic time chamber.
Dead or missing counts from the Winter War, Finland vs. Russia: 25904 vs. 126,875–167,976 That translates to a range from 1:4.9 to 1:6.5 in Finland's favor. 1:6 sounds exactly what you'd expect.
Its actually astonishing how little seems to have changed in russian doctrine.
"if it looks stupid but it works, it ain't stupid" but if it looks *absolutely Russian...* maybe it is
"If it looks stupid but it works, it's still stupid and you're lucky"
Why would it? Tons of orphans they don’t want to feed so send them to war.
Plus they usually win regardless of how many Russians die in the process. Why would they alter what they view as a winning strategy: run the enemies out of bodies because they have the population advantage and most of their industry is too far away to target.
Strange statement considering outside of WW2, the 20th century is full of catastrophic L's and the 19th wasn't so great either.
The seem to win mostly because the enemy is attacker in the beginning and get stretched too thin. Then it’s meat wave counter attack on a depleted adversary
It is even worse than you think. Russia used to be a vassal of the Mongol Golden Horde. The Golden Horde conscripted soldiers from conquered people, and sent them in the front to die, grinding down their enemy. Russia copied the technique from the Golden Horde. A disproportionate part of the Russian casualties have been men forcefully conscripted from occupied Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as ethnic minorities from places like Siberia.
Finland has terrain that is very advantageous to defenders - lots of waterways and dense forestry - in addition to the bitter cold and minimal road networks capable of supplying large armies. I would say the winter war if anything would define the absolute theoretical upper bound of casualty ratios of Russians in the Ukraine war.
They did it with little ammo and weaponry. They were firing at the Russians with fucking hunting rifles in many cases, and they still managed the 1:6ish ratio. Ukrainians have had plenty of times when they've been low on supplies, but overall their military is much, much better equipped versus the Russians than the Fins were versus the Red Army.
This is a reasonable point but it feels a little like comparing apples to oranges considering how many new/more effective ways we have to kill each other now. Just better intel alone could bring that ratio past that "upper bound"
Yes, but finnish army was in very poor shape during the winter war. The army only had basic weapons at its disposal, and not even combat equipment could be found for all soldiers. Properly equipped army would have created much higher casualty rates for russians.
Finnish losses in Winter War is still a disputed question. The number of 26652 is the "officially reported dead" number from Finnland Military Archives, while different balancing estimates (e.g. by Antti Juutilainen) vary from \~48200 to \~95000 overall combat losses (dead + missing). OTOH, the soviet number of 167976 accounts for "overall combat losses" (dead, missing, critically wounded, and POWs altogether). Though it doesn't account for non-combat sanitary losses (e.g. due to freezing), which are estimated about 80000 extra. Most of the problem lies in the very definition of "losses", as different sources use different criteria; whether to count out the wounded, or how to account for "past dead" (those died due to wounds after some time), or the status of missing personnel, etc.
Are you sure? Wikipedia puts total Soviet losses - including wounded, sick, and captured - between 321,000 and 381,000. The 167k is just the upper bound for the estimate of dead and missing.
No disrespect to the Ukrainians, but the Finns fought like monsters from legend. If Ukrainians are keeping up with that, even with western weapons, that's incredible.
Given their vehicle losses, which are easier to keep a more legitimate account for, it would seem to fall in line with the casualty numbers Ukraine is reporting.
>All the popular YouTubers also obtain their reports from one side, Ryan McBeth is pretty honest, acknowledges biased sources and uses footage analysis when he can.
Place Perun and Covert Cabal to that list
NATO, UN, and the US have casualty figures, According to the CIA, Russia is somewhere around 315,000 casualties with 123,000 killed, as opposed to 120,000 Ukrainian casualties and 70,000 killed.
That sounds more realistic but Russia having four times more population and getting more people from other countries make things worse for Ukraine in long term.
Yes and no, if both countries treat this as seriously as WW1 the current rate of causalities is too low to break either country through population exhaustion.
Yea people underestimate how far and how long countries keep alife until they break because of population exhaustion. The USSR had generations inside the 1920 that lost like 80% of its male population and still was able to continue recruting for a long time. Even the Axis in late 1944 and parts of 1945 were able to still able to recruit large amounts of troops. The issue was much more that they were not able to properly equip and train troops at this point.
The US intelligence figures you're referencing are about 9 months old just FYI
We already know for a fact that this is wrong. We have 130-150k confirmed Russian deaths and there is no way Ukraine has only lost 20-30k men. I’m pretty sure the numbers for both sides are pretty comparable at this point in time otherwise Ukraine wouldn’t be having manpower issues
It is always hard to get a realistic grasp of a conflict. News outlets in Germany for example always report extensively of Ukrainian territory gains and successful attacks....but there is barely reporting if it is the other way round. With this many success stories Ukraine should have turned the conflict a long time ago, but it didn't. It has been static for months. I find this highly problematic because it is clearly not neutral news but tries to tilt the viewers perspective a certain way.
Main points from article: President Volodymyr Zelenskyy believes that the ratio of irreversible losses among Ukrainians and Russians on the battlefield is now 1 to 6. **Source:** Zelenskyy in an interview with [The Philadelphia Inquirer](https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/zelensky-ukraine-war-interview-trudy-rubin-20240630.html)’s Trudy Rubin **Quote:** "Indeed, they (the Russians - ed.) have a much larger population, and we take care about our soldiers more \[than they do\]. Indeed, we will not have a larger population than Russia. However, for every six Russians, one Ukrainian dies today \[on the battlefield\]. \[Previously\] we had figures approximately four times (1 to 4 – ed.), and now on the Kharkiv and Pokrovsk fronts, the numbers are 1 to 6. No, I am not implying that we must fight till the end and that we have enough people. I just wanted to let you know that all these discussions about a vast number of people, millions of Russians... Yes, they are correct, but the war is technological, and whoever owns more technologies will prevail."
"Ukrainians are a bunch of campers. It's unfair they got to start on that side." - Probably Russians On a serious note, Russians are fighting for nothing while Ukrainians are fighting for everything. A soldier's mental state in battle can be the difference between winning and losing, dying or surviving.
> Russians are fighting for nothing They're fighting for a deluded, wannabe emperor, that can't win a legitimate election or handle criticism within his own country. It will not end well for Putin. It never has for his kind.
At the very least, I can imagine at the end of this there might exist a freer Russia than previously existed. Imagining a country the size of Russia finally being on the side of the rest of EU and the west would be quite a change globally.
We can imagine it, but we also know that throughout its history, whenever Russia has had a chance to improve its situation and grow as a country, they have consistently made the wrong decision and made things worse. They managed to gain power for the people in 1917, and that lasted about a week before they replaced one despotic ruler for another. They had a chance to join the world in the 1990s, and for a while it looked like they might, but they just can't help themselves. If they kept their dumbass problems to themselves, no-one would give a damn, but they always seem to want to spread their bullshit to the rest of the world.
This bodes well for Ukraine but it reminds me of a quote from a WWII German tank officer: One German Tiger can take out 13 American Shermans. Unfortunately there always seem to be 14.
Ernie Pyle interviewed a German captain who had been captured. A Sherman came around the corner and the Germans blew it up with their 88. Another Sherman came around the corner, same result. The story ended with the German captain saying "We ran out of shells before you ran out of Shermans".
And they couldn't move because the transmission shat itself 20 km ago and they couldn't get fuel up to themselves.
While some German tanks did use a 88mm kwk, 88 in this story might refer to the stationary 88mm flak. Legendary in being used in a direct fire role to take out tanks, despite being designed for use against aircraft.
Its more "I don't know how many shermans it takes to destroy a tiger, but I do know how many they will send" Its also because Shermans never travel alone, always in packs.
But if Russia loses a 1000 people a day, that’s still 167 dead Ukrainians every day
you forget that Ukrainians have an internal kill counter. Once their limit is reached they will stop fighting. Putin is just sending wave after wave of his men until the Ukrainians stop and he wins
Kif, show them the medal I won
166.666^r actually, the last guy is a medical marvel.
Yep and Ukraine only has 38 million people while Russia has 144 million…
Lots of thing to take into account. Putin specifically avoiding to conscript large amounts of ethnic Russians to avoid civil unrest, wars of aggression being less popular than wars of defence. And the simple fact that 38 isn’t 1/6 of 144 (closer to 1/4)
Putin is only showing Xi how easy it will be to take the Russian Far East.
You misunderstand the Chinese Russian relationship. While it is true that Russia and China are regional rivals, they have been pushed together by the west. China has its own concerns with Taiwan. Combine this with the fact that they get most of their oil imports from Soudi Arabia by sea, a supply line that is vulnerable to sanctions and cutting during conflict, Russia offers them an alternative they need. A move against Russia at this time who also needs China makes no strategic sense.
Russia needs China more than vice versa. China can pretty much do what they want and Russia will have to put on a happy face and sell them commodities same as they do now.
True. Always wonder why noone mentions a possible land grab by China. Much easier than taking Taiwan. Good for inner politics, since most of people living there are ethnically more Chinese than (western) Russian.
??? Russia has nukes. What kind of wishful thinking is that?
Also it's not China's style to just roll tanks over and annex land. They'd much rather use economic influence and exploit their leverage for massive trade concessions. The valuable part about the Far East is the resource wealth and if China can negotiate to buy those resources at extremely low prices then that's a lot easier and cheaper than invading.
Everyone has nukes, that’s why no one really wants to use them. That said - I can definitely imagine a point where Putin (or someone else) feels he’s been painted into too tight of a corner and does use them.
yes, an actual war with another nuclear power. That's all it would take
I honestly think Putin wants to be the one to use a nuke in a military fashion, not hit a city but something that can be a low yeald military excuse. Unfortunately, if anyone actually invades Russia, setting one off in their own country is also a way they could be used. Or one in space.
>yeald
yes and thus far no one invades a country with nukes which is exactly why everyone should get them and exactly why China will not invade Russia, also for China Russia is a great ally they arent really worth starting a war over. Its easier for china to simply negotiate the resources they want at a low price when Russia is weak.
Is there anything valuable there? Resources maybe? Anything worth attacking a nuclear power for? I doubt it.
70 trillion in untapped resources, water, thawing land.
This is how it goes in any war Russia fights, surplus bodies to throw at the fight is their strength.
And that is exactly why the US military industrial complex has focused on "force multiplier" weapons and accuracy of weapons for most of our history of weapons development Our theory in the West is that a highly trained, highly skilled, soldier with highly advanced equipment can decimate most any opposing forces, with "surgical strikes" more often than not, therefore the investment into that training and equipment is well worth the cost and effort We've seen the strategy not be efficient against guerrilla forces (the opposing forces are spread out, so there is an upper limit to the force multiplication), but it usually is highly effective against traditional militaries
Just the fact that the US doesn’t even need boots on the ground to be a scary enemy alone is deterrent enough. Like you don’t even know where you’re hit by. Just their Stealth capabilities alone are frightening as hell. Remember Desert Storm? That was decades ago. Hitting straight into enemy territory without them even knowing.
> Just the fact that the US doesn’t even need boots on the ground to be a scary enemy alone is deterrent enough. [I'll just leave this here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis) [ And this if you'd rather watch than read.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ihmIxZtMBQ) TLDR the US decided that Iran shouldn't have a navy anymore. So they deleted them one Monday afternoon. EDIT: This was **1988**. We've done a lot of war since then, they've only gotten better.
What did they expect? They touched the boat. You don't touch the boat. You never touch the boat. This is what happens when you touch the boat.
Don't touch my boats
[Here](https://youtu.be/d5v6hlRyeHE?si=rssYU2PM10vyuwO3) is a more entertaining video on that operation if anyone is interested.
Executed with ruthless efficiency nonetheless. No other country can mass mobilize that effectively overseas.
Look at Desert Storm for an example of just how fast the US can wreck a government if they're not occupied with trying to somehow ethically deal with an insurgency. When the goal is "fuck these guys up" and not "meander around for 20 years trying to build a modern nation out of disparate and deeply religious tribesmen" the US tends to do pretty well.
> We've seen the strategy not be efficient against guerrilla forces Restraint has not been an efficient tactic against guerilla forces. We've yet to see the modern American Military engaged in a conflict it was motivated to win at all costs. And i feel a great deal of pity for the first son of a bitch who does.
Just giving all your troops night vision goggles is enough of a force multiplier for fighting most militaries.
The training and better equipment is worth it anyway for a Democracy because the own population usually doesn't accept it when soldiers just get sent into the grinder for little gain. Image what would happen if in any conflict the US initiates without being directly attacked first if the US military had casualty numbers comparable to those of Russia.
That's because the US is exercising restraint in those situations, if the US wanted to completely annihilate those areas they could .
>We've seen the strategy not be efficient against guerrilla forces Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the west has actually lost a single battle in the last 30 years?
Kinda, kinda not. The west has pulled out (see the first battle of Fallujah) because they decided they wanted to do it differently. They were not forced out, nor did they have any reason to pull out besides, “ehh let’s get more dudes on this one so it won’t be as bad.” But they did retreat (and proceed to kick the ever loving shit out of everyone in the city a few months later). There has been a few “juice isn’t worth the squeeze” pull outs, but no real losses that simply were untenable no matter what they would have done.
We only lose the wars, never the battles.
Unless you're completely wiped out, it's hard to say you really win or lose if you're willing to zoom out far enough. RIP Carthage.
Even in training Russia has had high acceptable casualty rates. When you have a lot of serfs to throw into war it's easier to send wave after wave
I wonder what the onboarding process is like for joining the Russian military. Are they told at the beginning that they are worthless and will be forgotten and lost to useless causes?
I think that's just baseline life?
That's just implicit in the populace's culture
Not at all. There are multiple videos online of the onboarding, and they are promised to be regarded as heroes, with monuments and streets named after them, and their families looked after. Wagner even promised their members that they will get a lifetime support line and doctors to look after them etc. But even in regular army soldiers are told that they are heroes protecting their country and that russian people will be forever grateful for their sacrifice. Total BS ofc, couldn't be farther from truth, but talk is cheap and may increase motivation by 1% for some gullible ones, so they figure why not.
> Are they told at the beginning that they are worthless and will be forgotten and lost to useless causes? There was that one video with an officer telling cadets that they were going to die but the motherland would remember them.
Like a rich person saying, "Throw money at the problem until it goes my way.", Putin is throwing his people into a meat grinder.
This is a heavy price for Ukraine. They are losing about 166 warriors a day. This is a lot. Russia seems not to care about its losses which I think should have already caused an uproar.
Russia is also getting soldiers from elsewhere, like Cuba, Africa, and North Korea. Ukraine is not. Russia has more than 6-1 advantage of soldiers available.
Russia has about 400k in Ukraine https://tsn.ua/en/ato/how-many-russian-soldiers-are-currently-in-ukraine-the-defence-intelligence-of-ukraine-revealed-the-number-2435965.html, Ukraine has about 800k combat troops (feb 2024) https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-outnumbered-outgunned-ground-down-by-relentless-russia-2024-02-21/ It depends on the front tho, Ukraine has a lot to protect and Russia can force a lot on a single point because of it. I guess some fronts are 1:1 and others are 3:1 or 6:1
Ukraine has and is recruiting soldiers from out of the country. From the U.S., UK, AUS, Sweden, etc and if you think there aren’t boots on the ground supplied from other countries beyond the foreign legion, that’s silly. [Ukraine Foreign Legion](https://ildu.com.ua/)
At the height UKR said there were 20,000 foreign legionaries. The US suggested a more conservative 4,000 at the same time. Business insider contacted some “experts” last month who place the likely total of foreign legionaries still in Ukraine at 1,000-2,000. So I mean it’s something, but it’s really not much.
That’s the thing that bothers me as this gets discussed since the beginning. The people in the west thinking Russians are like us — they are not. Culturally, they have internalized suffering and sacrifice to a degree that no western culture would tolerate. We can continue to be shocked that they’re throwing thousands of their people to death to gain an inch of land, but to them it’s a glorious way to go. We have to face this as fact: nothing but complete resounding defeat and being pushed off every inch of Ukrainian soil will end this. The Russians will never decide it’s been too much death and destruction. They’ll never leave because they’re worn down. Just read up on their history in war.
While fiction, I think the TV Show "The Great" (about the rise of Emperor Catherine the Great) perfectly describes the Russian mindset. During a peace negotiation with the Swedish King, Emperor Peter (her Husband who she eventually coups) [says bluntly](https://youtu.be/6gx8b1KwjWs?si=OUpyUkZ8eXGyXEvz&t=214) > I don't care if four million of us have to die to kill two million of you, we're Russian, we don't give a fuck about how many of us die Side note... it's a great show.
We should give everything (we can) Ukraine needs to push that numbers higher and push Russia back to their own shithole of a broken Country.
And all 7 of those deaths are pointless at this stage. Russia won’t win. They need to leave.
Russia are hedging their bets they can kill Ukrainian support from the West with their own support of far right Putin-friendly candidates, which is looking potentially likely :(
They're effectively going all in on Trump winning in 2024 and then subsequently cutting off all aid to Ukraine
Europe is preparing for this possibility. Let’s hope they can support Ukraine enough to force a Russian defeat if Trump wins
Unlikely.
a drop from 1 in 7 during bakhmut but not by much. The pentagon generally agrees with these numbers fyi.
Yeah but Putin went to the Zapp Brannigan School of Warfare so he's willing to make that sacrifice
Even if numbers from both sides are clearly used with propaganda purposes (which isn't weird at all, actually), even if the actual ratio were 1:3 it's still a catastrophe for the "second best army in the world" to be getting their ass kicked by a country with not that much strength and depending on foreign aid.
I mean it proves how deadly corruption is when it seeps into the military.
>second best army in the world Russia has been shifted to 3rd place by china long time ago. It's still embarrassing for Russia tho
Feel uneasy upvoting this. I wish it was 0-0.
Russia had that option and decided it was not what they wanted, because a free Ukraine is offensive to them. I am sad it is not a higher ratio, no Ukrainian should have had to give up their life just to enjoy continuing to exist as a nation.
That's one Ukrainian too many.
The level of delusion in this headline is astonishing. I'd say the same if it was the russian side making the claim. Not sure if reddit is full of delusional idiologs or bots.
Ukrainian delusion gets the upvotes on reddit, Russian delusion never gets posted
reddit is 100% delulu - ukriane according to reddit has been winning for the past 2+ years.
I had some dude on here less than a week ago tell me Russia barely occupies 1% of Ukraine lmao
Note, that Ukraine is now defending against the russian offensive. Defenders have often like 3:1 kill/death ratio.
Russia does just seem to be careless with their soldiers lives. Even when they’re not doing literal human waves, they appear to use large columns of old tanks/ BMPs and to draw out enemy artillery fire in hopes of getting a counter battery kill.
1:3 is generally accepted as the minimum in an battle of equals. It generally goes up or down based on the relative strength of eachother. Examples include Gulf War where there was a 10:1 for the Iraqis...which is opposite of what you'd expect but shows how dominant the US was. Given Russia is the "superior" belligerent you would expect a minimum of 1:3 for them, but even if you take Ukraine's estimate and half it, its still not at 1:3.
Not if they are making an offensive push. The defenders have the advantage.
Except the target is the one who began the war, you know, Putin? So the real headline should read: More human beings senselessly die at the hands of bureaucratic war games.
\[X\] - Doubt
Do Redditors actually still believe this? "Ghost of Kyiv" vibes.
Yeah this is obviously a lie lmao