this is the closest to unbiased source we will get on the actual number of casualties in the war
what are your thoughts on this?
from other sources i heard that Ukraine's wounded to killed ratio is 1 to 3 and Russia's is 1 to 2 which means 33k deaths vs 90k deaths
seems reasonable to me
I think anyone with a strong opinion on the matter is too influenced by propaganda from either side to matter. I'll believe the stats from the US/UK a solid year after the fighting has stopped.
the US figures were pretty close to the leaked Russian ministry numbers, and US/UK predicted the war would happen a month in advance while everyone kept saying it wouldnt. the glowies at Five Eyes have been spot on the entire time
US/UK had repeatedly predicted this along with others several times before it actually happened. Blind squirrel: nut. I personally predict the US will enter a conflict with China at some point, gimme props
Didn't Von Der Leyen accidentally reveal 100K Ukrainian KIA back in November?
It seems like the closest thing to an unbiased source would be a slip of the tongue like that, since any planned statement will be made for propaganda purposes.
Planned statements can be useful for setting upper and lower bounds on casualties though (ie, Ukrainian casualties are certainly higher than their official claim and lower than the official Russian claim, and vice versa).
>I'll believe the stats from the US/UK a solid year after the fighting has stopped.
This
>It seems like the closest thing to an unbiased source would be a slip of the tongue like that, since any planned statement will be made for propaganda purposes.
Not everything is a freudian slip, that was probably just an "are you fricking sorry" situation
Von Der Leyen only revealed that she doesn't know what an cfficer is or what a casualty is
we will never know the real kill counts in both of these uncivilized countries
Yeah, seems genuinely legit.
Ukraine's been decently bloodied as well, but still pales in comparison to Russia and has superior casevac. While, with some exceptions like Lyman, has managed to fall back when failure bit them in the ass (even if it meant abandooning).
it seems reasonable, we know both sides have taken high casualties, and if we factor in both a defender's advantage as well as differences in medevac/medic availability the ukies should be getting off lighter to some degree
That sounds about right
moronic estimates. id love to know how they arrived at those numbers
Well, basically, Russia really sucks shit and they're being generous by applying a 3:1 defender advantage ratio. In reality, since Russia is incredibly incompetent and we have seen it over and over again, the numbers are probably even more lopsided. But in this thread, we are being charitable towards the vatnik cretins and their supporters, who are brown homosexuals.
Summer 2022 Orbán announced publicly that 86 soldiers from the Hungarian minority died in the war. There are 150.000 Hungarians in Ukraine.
Do the math, you will get a terrifying number.
there are still hungarians in ukraine? that IS terrifying
I love to see how the soldiers of the big Ukrainian infowar operate.
There are Hungarians????? Very scary indeed.
Using a round number of 35 million total Ukrainian citizens (estimate 41 million in February prior to invasion, let's say 6kk left the country) that results in a grand total of... 20k casualties. Let's say you double it since it's been 6 months since summer. That's 40k.
That is hardly "terrifying", especially since we're using very rough numbers and as well big assumptions. With this model the more accurate number may be smaller, since Ukrainian casualties were at their worst during summer.
>Orbán
Kek frick off. That moron is only where he is thanks to his muh trad values and trianon rhetoric. Meanwhile he sucks Hungary dry while getting support from Hungarians from Slovakia and Romania.
It wouldn't scale proportionally like that, idiots, minorities are always over-represented in militarys.
Partially correct, they are either wildly overrepresented or wildly underrepresented. Depends on the minority and typically whether or not their parents had any right to be there
Seems believable to me.
There is zero fricking chance only 30k civs died.
30k confirmed in liberated cities, probably way more in occupied cities
Mariupol alone is probably 30k+
I think the Russians are fricking barbarians but there's no way they killed 30k civilians at Mariupol lol
Yeah they probably killed 300k, you're right.
There is good chance many got deported to russia i guess. But I still think one should expect high causilties from maripol
Number of dead civvies seems low to me.
33k vs 90k casualties seems true enough, for reference that total is around the same as Congo Crisis, maybe even more, and that went for like five years
EU including Bongs say 300,000 Russian
Amerimutts say 200,000 Russian
The real number is prob higher than either and kill: wounded ratio is 1:2
source: it was revealed to me in a dream
A 1:2 ratio for fatalities to wounded would be 60k total fatalities for Russia, unless you’re saying that 1 out of 2 wounded Russians die. But usually, that kind of x:y ratio is taken to mean that, for every x number of soldiers who die, y number are wounded and survive.
A 1:3 fatality-wounded ratio for Ukraine would equate to 25k military fatalities.
>unless you’re saying that 1 out of 2 wounded Russians die
I think that's the rough estimate considering they rarely go back to collect their wounded
Anectoal story but my friend's older brother who is a Russian man in his 50s got drafted to the front, he got shot in the leg and laid 12 hours in the dirt until he got picked up, his injury wasn't severe but he lost his leg because of how long it took them to actually get to him
Any serious injury and he'd be dead in 12 hours or even less
>norway, a nato member who's actively supporting ukraine in the conflict
>"this is the closest to unbiased source we will get on the actual number of casualties in the war"
Westerners, especially western Europeans and very especially the Nordics just tend to be truthful. Crazy, right?
>"Hurrrrrrr only a few dozen oinkrainians killed"
No one says that homosexual
>this is the closest to unbiased source we will get on the actual number of casualties in the war
it cant be /k/tards are sure ukraine has lost less than 10000 because they are the best at medevac
they also can ressurect soldiers and ubercharge them tf2 style
Iirc the 10k number was from early August, and only accounted for the Ukraine Army. Not for the airforce, territorial defence and other armed formations that do not fall under the umbrella of the army. Typical in military structure standard they probably didn't include MIA's and were quoting a previous report
Ain't nobody figuring out how many corpses russia had to bury there until they are evicted from it.
Don't even think offical Russian sources claim that.
Us HATO nazis use the kritzkrieg, sasha
sorry i forgot ukrainians cant outsmart bullets
>it costs 400,000 Russians
>to take this village
>of 4 people
MAHHko is trying to escalate this war by suppling Reliable Excavation Demonazis with Level 3 sentries.
all you need is some putinbros or otherwise known pybros to deal with it
demonazis must be elliminated
I'm surprised their civilian ratio isn't higher from things like Mariupol.
>unbiased source
>from country neighboring russia
>and from some random c**t that has about the same access to real data as the average PrepHole has
But sure, numbers seem somewhere closeby, around hundred thousand one way or another for all numbers.
How about we stop giving a shit about foreign wars entirely?
Only involvement people who care about that have is gonna be paying off the billions of dollars their israelite of a president is getting in aid.
But i'm having fun seeing weapons in action. And being on the righteous side is fun too.
How about noting that Russian subversion is why gun rights are under threat by the Left they created? How about noting Russia helped kill and wound nearly every US casualty since WWII (and some during WWII if we count shit like letting Poltava get lit up while failing to provide air cover).
You're brown or Serb or both frick off.
Russians dominate artillery minimum 5:1 and probably more like 10:1 at Bakhmut, where hohols are pouring in reserves to be slaughtered by that artillery. That position means something to them, and they are willing to heavily deplete their capable forces to hold it. They are all in, and the Russians keep firing, with little counterbattery fire. Will the hohols collapse after they lose that position? From the way globohomosexual is scurrying around about tanks right now, and pointing fingers, they obviously think so.
>Russians dominate artillery minimum 5:1 and probably more like 10:1 at Bakhmut,
And they haven't taken the town after 8 fricking months? Come on.
Arty is pretty shitty offensive weapon unless you are just leveling everything, which is quite costly in every way possible.
If you shell hohol conscript trenches and they fill them back up to be slaughtered again, then the Russians will sit there and do that forever.
>haven't taken the town after 8 fricking months
Hohols haven't been clustering up to be slaughtered there until just recently. If they're willing to be slaughtered via artillery over it, that position matters to them. This could be their last stand.
Just two more weeks!
More weeks: Two
homie Norway is as biased as one can be
ISIS or Crimean Tatars might be the most unbiased source one can get
there's estimates of more than 80K dead civillians in Mariupol alone so 30K for the entire war seems a little low.
they didnt count casualties in occupied territories yet because theres no way to do it accurately right now
we'll know the real numbers after Russians leave
>180k Russian casualties in what was supposed to be a quick special military operation
>the US has suffered ~173k casualties in military action since the formation of the country combined (including the Revolutionary War), when you exclude the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and Vietnam
>Russia is already at 85% of the casualties the US suffered in Vietnam, and 56% of the casualties the US suffered during the 20 months of their involvement in WWI
>we're only 11 months in, or about 55% of the time the US was involved in WWI
Realistically, how much more can Russia take, and when was the last military operation that was botched this hard?
>Russia was supposed to have the second most powerful army in the world after the US, followed by China
>even casualty reports from unbiased sources now have Russia suffering solidly WWI tier losses, in a war with the poorest country in Europe that was simply gifted some gear that NATO has had in service for decades
What does this mean for the future of war? Has military technology advanced to the point where the Earth can actually no longer support the possibility of near peer conflicts with countries that have reached a US/NATO level of technological advancement? Are we going to see weaker countries start focusing on acquiring nukes rather than advancing other military technologies, now that we've seen how massive the technological gap between state of the art Russian equipment and old NATO equipment is?
>tons of countries start developing nukes
>with the possibility of an arms race with Russia out of the picture and general nuclear proliferation in the picture, the US and allies resume developing ways to effectively shoot down ICBMs, allowing them to operate outside of the previous MAD doctrine
>the taboo level of using nukes gets downgraded from ZOMG apocalypse to being equivalent to using chemical weapons, and we get to live in a world where we occasionally get to see a less developed country throw a low yield nuke at another less developed country
Could be kino.
>when was the last military operation that was botched this hard?
For the Russians? I believe Tsushima or the winter war.
War economies can continue to function for quite a while even when under enormous pressure, consider the Nazi war economy for an example
Likely another 20 years assuming no internal coup, even shitholes like Russia have a lot of production capability when all of it turned towards war production.
The only way Russia becomes unable to continue is if strategic targets like factories and power plants get hit inside Russia.
The US hasn't really ever suffered appreciable casualties in a war, we're good like that. Russia lost 27 million people in WW2 between civilians and soldiers, so casualties on the order of < 1,000,000 aren't enough to even faze them in a mathematical sense. Of course, when people start losing family members in stupid wars then popular support erodes, but if you force the country on a wartime footing they could survive 50x the current casualties before they get to the point that they can no longer fight. They also have access to as much metal and fuel as they want, so they probably won't have too many issues keeping munitions flowing. They're more likely to get bottlenecked on high-tech products.
Plausible numbers.
Literally not even the russian MoD claim numbers so high.
The big problem is not losing men per se, but rather the loss of specialized personnel and particularly equipment, which Russia will have huge issues recovering from. This is also why we are seeing newly trained russian artillery/tank battalions being repurposed as light infantry ones on the fly and them committed to the front, with no retraining, since they lack both the equipment to actually equip them and proper personnel that could train them properly for their new role.
>and when was the last military operation that was botched this hard?
Either the 1st Chechen War or Iran-Iraq, depending on how you define "botched".
Civilian number seems low, generally more civilians die than combatants especially when shelling cities is a major tactic.
How many Ukrainian fatalities?