178
Who's winning the war in Ukraine?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
178 points (88.7% liked)
Asklemmy
44196 readers
1187 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Not hardly. Russian sources keep misreporting this battle. The coke plant is a great example: How many times has it been "taken"? Was capturing it once not enough? That kind of location doesn't switch hands on a whim, btw.
The troop movements by Russia into that city are horrendous. The sheer numbers of soldiers that get turned into paste while charging into useless locations already zeroed by artillery is just weird.
A proven fact of war is that attackers are always at a disadvantage. Troop losses will be generally be much higher for any side that goes on the offense. The number 38k is just mind boggling low for the length of time it takes for Russia to take a city, especially against western weapons.
If 38k losses for Russia were actually a thing, there would be no need to increase their army size. Medvedev stated that Russia was able to recruit an additional 420k soldiers. That number is probably only about 100k, because Russia has their own numbering system for a lot of things.
Wagner alone lost ~10k prisoner conscripts in Bakhmut. Depending on the weather, or whatever, Wagner existed, or they never existed. Those numbers don't count as Russians, I guess.
If you want a much better source of evil western fake data and propaganda, use the ISW. They also confirmed a NATO statement about Russia being at the 300k loss mark. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates
Normally, I would say that 300k is likely over-inflated as well. However, just looking at how attacks are conducted by Russia makes that number believable.
Even Ukrainian sources admit this now. Given that Ukraine spent six month trying to take a place called Piatykhatky which literally translates into five huts, the fact that Russia is now close to taking a city that used to have 30k people before the war, and has been heavily fortified shows which side is making actual progress.
Ah yes, bazillion Russians killed, asiatic hordes, and orc meat wave tactics. We've heard all that. By this point Russia must've lost like a 100 million people already.
People keep regurgitating this, but that only applies to equal armies where the defender actually has weapons and troops to match. Russia massively outguns Ukraine, and vast majority of losses in this war are to artillery fire. If you actually wanted to understand what's going on, you could read this explanation from Mearsheimer that's well sourced.
The reality is that Russia enjoys roughly 10x artillery advantage over Ukraine, and that results in far greater casualties on the Ukrainian side. Ukraine has gone through three whole armies already, and they're now literally mobilizing children, women, and the elderly. Meanwhile, Russia has only done a single mobilization in this whole time.
38k number is total Russian losses since the start of the war.
ISW is not a reliable source by any stretch of imagination. It's Nuland's personal propaganda outlet. There is literally zero evidence for Russian losses being anywhere near 300k. BBC and Mediazona are the only western outlets that have a methodology they can show.
Assuming that everything we both are saying is false, the fact remains that Russia hasn't hardly been able to move the lines at all. You can flash that chart you want with land gains from 2023, but it doesn't really apply.
Russia is still an attacking force, they are still the invaders and they are locked in a slow stalemate with a much smaller force. Russia does have many more resources, so it must be their choice to have stretched this conflict out for as long as it has been going, for whatever reason. (Without a doubt, you have a long list of counter arguments and media links to the contrary. Even your boy Rybar doesn't align with what you are saying.)
I respect the work of Mediazona to a degree, but they are open about their inaccuracies. They appear to define "casualties" as only deaths. Of those deaths, they are only counting verified ones from social media, local news and from government sources that aren't named. If they aren't counting a casualty in the true definition of a "war casualty", the numbers are going to be different. (Their own estimates put true numbers of deaths around 55k in July which would put allow for a wider casualty estimate of around 165k casualties. You use the napkin math of 1:3, killed:removed from battle permanently)
And yeah, it's the Russian M.O. to use mass instead of quality. It's their thing. Little value is placed on a single soldier or even an artillery shell. That concept is baked into all of their military hardware designs and strategy.
Russia's goal hasn't been to move the lines. Their goal is to grind down Ukrainian army until it collapses. You don't have to take my word for it, this was the assessment of U.S. Lt. Col. Alex Vershinin retired after 20 years of service, including eight years as an armor officer with four combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and 12 years working as a modeling and simulations officer in NATO and U.S. Army concept development and experimentation. This assessment is shared by vast majority of military experts:
https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/whats-ahead-war-ukraine
That's a simplistic characterization. The reality is that both sides do their share of attacks. For example, if Russia takes a bit of territory then Ukraine is forced to try and take it back. Ukraine has also conducted a huge offensive over the past six months on a far bigger scale than anything Russia's done so far, and if attacking is what nets you a lot of losses then this would be the biggest source of casualties over the course of the war.
I don't really follow Rybar, I haven't found them to be all that reliable. People like Vershinin, Macgregor, Berletic, and Mearsheimer have been consistently decent at explaining what's happening, and what they've been predicting would happen actually aligns with what we're seeing. Telegram channels are simply not comparable to actual experts.
55k deaths with 165k wounded is certainly a plausible number in my opinion. However, even with these numbers, Russia clearly has no problems growing the size of the army. Meanwhile, Ukraine has a much smaller population to draw on, and many people fled the country at the start of the war making the situation worse. The fact that Ukraine keeps expanding the mobilization efforts is a strong indicator of serious losses.
Ukraine has three major problems. First is that it's entirely reliant on the west economically, and support is now dwindling. Second is that Ukraine is also reliant on the west for weapons and ammunition which are running out. Especially problematic given that the west is refocusing it's support to backing Israel's genocide in Palestine. Finally, Ukraine is running out of a trained and motivated soldiers needed to hold the army together. Once the professional core is gone, it can't simply be replaced by people kidnapped off the street and given a few weeks of training.
It's absolutely not their thing, and it's just another piece of western mythology. You should read a bit of actual history of WW2 to see this has no basis in reality.