|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
United States44373 Posts
On March 16 2022 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
After Crimea yes, you have a point with being critical of Merkels actions towards Russia, but before that I don't think anyone was expecting Russia to aggressively expand West.
Heck 3 weeks ago many people didn't think a full scale invasion was actually going to happen.
It’s weird because there was an absolute fortune to be made on ForEx etc. if you knew it was going to happen and Biden was openly saying “we have people highly placed who have literally already received the orders, it’s been decided and is already underway, the invasion has begun, they just haven’t announced it yet”. Everyone just dismissed Grandpa Biden and his incredibly advanced network of spies and surveillance satellites.
|
13500 is insane there's no way that's accurate.
The United States lost 58,000 in Vietnam and that was over a course of 5-6 years. Russia losing 13500 in 2 weeks? That kind of carnage hasn't been seen since World War 2 I think. I don't remember what Russia's losses were like in Afghanistan but I'd be surprised if they were THAT high.
|
When Ukrainians report casualties, they mean "out of combat", that includes: dead, wounded and captured. They don't mean fatalities. I think US estimates for Russian loses were 6500 - 8000. Still pretty staggering but not as high as WWII which was about 1700 a day.
Russian fatalities in Afghanistan were ~14500 in 10 years.
|
Speaking of SPD chancellors, I found an article about Putin's friend Gerhard Schröder and his recent activities. He's still an SPD member but some people in the party want to expel him.
|
On March 16 2022 03:44 Silvanel wrote:
When Ukrainians report casualties, they mean "out of combat", that includes: dead, wounded and captured. They don't mean fatalities. I think US estimates for Russian loses were 6500 - 8000. Still pretty staggering but not as high as WWII which was about 1700 a day.
Russian fatalities in Afghanistan were ~14500 in 10 years.
When I said since WW2, I wasn't trying to say it was as high as WW2. Just that no war has had those kind of casualty figures since for a European power.
|
Wikipedia says USSR lost 14,453 men in Afghanistan (in almost 10 years!) but that's a pointless comparison because Ukraine is a large modern state with means to defend itself.
|
United States44373 Posts
On March 16 2022 03:39 Vindicare605 wrote:13500 is insane there's no way that's accurate. The United States lost 58,000 in Vietnam and that was over a course of 5-6 years. Russia losing 13500 in 2 weeks? That kind of carnage hasn't been seen since World War 2 I think. I don't remember what Russia's losses were like in Afghanistan but I'd be surprised if they were THAT high.
Don’t know if you know this but the Vietnam war lasted 20 years and was mostly fought by the Vietnamese. Direct US involvement was 12 years, not 5-6. US losses were so low because the South Vietnamese suffered 1.5m casualties. They were doing most of the heavy lifting.
It’s not really possible to compare Vietnam and Ukraine casualties like that because the US weren’t the main fighting force in Vietnam.
|
United States44373 Posts
On March 16 2022 03:53 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 03:44 Silvanel wrote:
When Ukrainians report casualties, they mean "out of combat", that includes: dead, wounded and captured. They don't mean fatalities. I think US estimates for Russian loses were 6500 - 8000. Still pretty staggering but not as high as WWII which was about 1700 a day.
Russian fatalities in Afghanistan were ~14500 in 10 years. When I said since WW2, I wasn't trying to say it was as high as WW2. Just that no war has had those kind of casualty figures since for a European power.
Korea?
|
On March 16 2022 03:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 03:39 Vindicare605 wrote:13500 is insane there's no way that's accurate. The United States lost 58,000 in Vietnam and that was over a course of 5-6 years. Russia losing 13500 in 2 weeks? That kind of carnage hasn't been seen since World War 2 I think. I don't remember what Russia's losses were like in Afghanistan but I'd be surprised if they were THAT high. Don’t know if you know this but the Vietnam war lasted 20 years and was mostly fought by the Vietnamese. Direct US involvement was 12 years, not 5-6. US losses were so low because the South Vietnamese suffered 1.5m casualties. They were doing most of the heavy lifting. It’s not really possible to compare Vietnam and Ukraine casualties like that because the US weren’t the main fighting force in Vietnam.
Oh I'm aware of all of that. I'm mostly thinking about it from a "public opinion back home" type of thing. US was only involved in Vietnam from about 1965 till 1975 the overall conflict lasted 20 years true but heavy US involvement only lasted for about 5-6 years.
Same deal with Korea, I was speaking only about the major Western powers involved and their casualty figures. Google says the US lost 40k fatalities in 3 years of warfare in Korea and 100k wounded. That's 140k total in 3 years. That's massive for sure. But 3 years is 144 weeks. 140/(144/2) = 1,944 casualties doesn't come anywhere close to 13.5k total casualties in a two week period whether it's all fatalities or not. The Ukrainians are claiming the Russians are losing nearly 10x as many soldiers as the Americans did during Korea. That figure just doesn't seem realistic to me.
Warfare has changed a TON since the 1950's. Korea was essentially fought using WW2 tactics just with some updated equipment. Men were treated as expendable a lot more back then than they are now. I just can't wrap my head around 13.5k casualties in 2 weeks unless there is MASS desertion going on that the Russians aren't admitting to.
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On March 16 2022 03:53 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 03:44 Silvanel wrote:
When Ukrainians report casualties, they mean "out of combat", that includes: dead, wounded and captured. They don't mean fatalities. I think US estimates for Russian loses were 6500 - 8000. Still pretty staggering but not as high as WWII which was about 1700 a day.
Russian fatalities in Afghanistan were ~14500 in 10 years. When I said since WW2, I wasn't trying to say it was as high as WW2. Just that no war has had those kind of casualty figures since for a European power.
Whut?
The Iraq war - estimated death toll 500k. Recored deaths 100k civilians. Almost 9-year long war. - 10k civilians per year
The Afghan war - recorded deaths between 170k and 210k, out of which 46k civilians. 19 years long war. - over 2k civilians per year
The Yemen civil war - 377k death(220k from indirect causes - like cholera). According to the Yemen side 13k civilians were killed by the SAudi intervention(those Saudis US sold weapons after the intervention started, just bloody facts). Since 2014 that makes 150k deathtoll, 7 years, 8k per year. Also, another bloody fact - many children died in this war, because it caused famine and cholera outbreaks and children aren't very well build to survive this.
The Syrian civil war - between 490k and 600k deaths, 160k civilians dead, war since 2011, averaging 14k civilians per year.
Did you miss the last 20-ish years?
And that's just 4 wars. The 2nd war at Karabakh was bloody as well. Numbers are lower than any of mine mentioned but armies were smaller - e.g. Armenian casualties are at 4k for a 3-million country. For a 6-week war.
Edit> Also the Mexican drug war is bloody as hell, 41k casualties of the war, the casualties of the terror are between 350k and 400k. The war runs since 2006 (soon 16 years)
Edit 2> And I strongly reinforce the fact Ukraine
1) Estimates the numbers
2) Counts EVERY loss, if a Russian soldier gets an asthma attack and is out of combat, it's in the 13,5k "casualties". I am unsure if Ukraine counts POW into this(they shouldn't)
Edit 3>
Pentagon estimates the Russian casualties(dead soldiers) between 2k and 4k
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220308-pentagon-estimates-2-000-to-4-000-russian-soldiers-killed-in-ukraine
It makes sense, according to the Czech Army standards you need 3:1 advantage to have a fighting chance without incorporating other advantages/disadvantages. if the Ukrainian casualties are around 1,3k (that's the last number I heard from the government of Ukraine IIRC) then the 4k Russian deaths are in this ratio and probably correct.
|
I don't want to get into the weird casualty dickwaving here, but i think it is safe to say that the Russians are suffering a lot of casualties for a modern military fighting a war that they themselves chose.
|
On March 16 2022 04:37 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 03:53 Vindicare605 wrote:On March 16 2022 03:44 Silvanel wrote:
When Ukrainians report casualties, they mean "out of combat", that includes: dead, wounded and captured. They don't mean fatalities. I think US estimates for Russian loses were 6500 - 8000. Still pretty staggering but not as high as WWII which was about 1700 a day.
Russian fatalities in Afghanistan were ~14500 in 10 years. When I said since WW2, I wasn't trying to say it was as high as WW2. Just that no war has had those kind of casualty figures since for a European power. Whut? The Iraq war - estimated death toll 500k. Recored deaths 100k civilians. Almost 9-year long war. - 10k civilians per year The Afghan war - recorded deaths between 170k and 210k, out of which 46k civilians. 19 years long war. - over 2k civilians per year The Yemen civil war - 377k death(220k from indirect causes - like cholera). According to the Yemen side 13k civilians were killed by the SAudi intervention(those Saudis US sold weapons after the intervention started, just bloody facts). Since 2014 that makes 150k deathtoll, 7 years, 8k per year. Also, another bloody fact - many children died in this war, because it caused famine and cholera outbreaks and children aren't very well build to survive this. The Syrian civil war - between 490k and 600k deaths, 160k civilians dead, war since 2011, averaging 14k civilians per year.Did you miss the last 20-ish years? And that's just 4 wars. The 2nd war at Karabakh was bloody as well. Numbers are lower than any of mine mentioned but armies were smaller - e.g. Armenian casualties are at 4k for a 3-million country. For a 6-week war. Edit> Also the Mexican drug war is bloody as hell, 41k casualties of the war, the casualties of the terror are between 350k and 400k. The war runs since 2006 (soon 16 years) Edit 2> And I strongly reinforce the fact Ukraine 1) Estimates the numbers 2) Counts EVERY loss, if a Russian soldier gets an asthma attack and is out of combat, it's in the 13,5k "casualties". I am unsure if Ukraine counts POW into this(they shouldn't) Edit 3> Pentagon estimates the Russian casualties(dead soldiers) between 2k and 4k https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220308-pentagon-estimates-2-000-to-4-000-russian-soldiers-killed-in-ukraineIt makes sense, according to the Czech Army standards you need 3:1 advantage to have a fighting chance without incorporating other advantages/disadvantages. if the Ukrainian casualties are around 1,3k (that's the last number I heard from the government of Ukraine IIRC) then the 4k Russian deaths are in this ratio and probably correct.
I'm not counting non-European military here. Obviously there's been horrific atrocities outside of Europe especially in Africa and Asia. As well as mass civilian deaths in the Balkans.
I'm saying, for a European Military or Western military one of the global powers of the world: this has been the worst amount of casualties suffered in a military operation since WW2. If that 13.5k number is to be believed.
Keep the context of when I brought this up. I brought this up to say that the Ukranian estimation of 13.5k total Russian dead, wounded and captured is insane. I wasn't comparing the entire conflict as a whole to other entire conflicts, I was just talking about the military losses of the global power here.
The reason this is significant is to showcase just how poorly this is going for the Russians. They're on pace to lose more men in Ukraine in a few months than they lost in 10 years of Afghanistan.
|
Your original comment didn't include anything about restricting losses to a European or Western military. Though right now it's debatable if Russia can be included as Western military to be honest. Your original comment seemed wierdly indifferent to deaths and suffering around the world in wars since WW2. Besides the various Yugoslav wars seemed somewhat comparable. How quickly do some people forget or simply do not know.
|
On March 16 2022 06:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Your original comment didn't include anything about restricting losses to a European or Western military. Though right now it's debatable if Russia can be included as Western military to be honest. Your original comment seemed wierdly indifferent to deaths and suffering around the world in wars since WW2. Besides the various Yugoslav wars seemed somewhat comparable. How quickly do some people forget or simply do not know.
Oh my lord. Look at my original response. It was expressing disbelief to the Ukranian estimations because of what that would mean in comparison with other military operations.
I was never being indifferent to other sources of suffering, that just wasn't what the original context was talking about.
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On March 16 2022 06:00 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 04:37 deacon.frost wrote:On March 16 2022 03:53 Vindicare605 wrote:On March 16 2022 03:44 Silvanel wrote:
When Ukrainians report casualties, they mean "out of combat", that includes: dead, wounded and captured. They don't mean fatalities. I think US estimates for Russian loses were 6500 - 8000. Still pretty staggering but not as high as WWII which was about 1700 a day.
Russian fatalities in Afghanistan were ~14500 in 10 years. When I said since WW2, I wasn't trying to say it was as high as WW2. Just that no war has had those kind of casualty figures since for a European power. Whut? The Iraq war - estimated death toll 500k. Recored deaths 100k civilians. Almost 9-year long war. - 10k civilians per year The Afghan war - recorded deaths between 170k and 210k, out of which 46k civilians. 19 years long war. - over 2k civilians per year The Yemen civil war - 377k death(220k from indirect causes - like cholera). According to the Yemen side 13k civilians were killed by the SAudi intervention(those Saudis US sold weapons after the intervention started, just bloody facts). Since 2014 that makes 150k deathtoll, 7 years, 8k per year. Also, another bloody fact - many children died in this war, because it caused famine and cholera outbreaks and children aren't very well build to survive this. The Syrian civil war - between 490k and 600k deaths, 160k civilians dead, war since 2011, averaging 14k civilians per year.Did you miss the last 20-ish years? And that's just 4 wars. The 2nd war at Karabakh was bloody as well. Numbers are lower than any of mine mentioned but armies were smaller - e.g. Armenian casualties are at 4k for a 3-million country. For a 6-week war. Edit> Also the Mexican drug war is bloody as hell, 41k casualties of the war, the casualties of the terror are between 350k and 400k. The war runs since 2006 (soon 16 years) Edit 2> And I strongly reinforce the fact Ukraine 1) Estimates the numbers 2) Counts EVERY loss, if a Russian soldier gets an asthma attack and is out of combat, it's in the 13,5k "casualties". I am unsure if Ukraine counts POW into this(they shouldn't) Edit 3> Pentagon estimates the Russian casualties(dead soldiers) between 2k and 4k https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220308-pentagon-estimates-2-000-to-4-000-russian-soldiers-killed-in-ukraineIt makes sense, according to the Czech Army standards you need 3:1 advantage to have a fighting chance without incorporating other advantages/disadvantages. if the Ukrainian casualties are around 1,3k (that's the last number I heard from the government of Ukraine IIRC) then the 4k Russian deaths are in this ratio and probably correct. I'm not counting non-European military here. Obviously there's been horrific atrocities outside of Europe especially in Africa and Asia. As well as mass civilian deaths in the Balkans. I'm saying, for a European Military or Western military one of the global powers of the world: this has been the worst amount of casualties suffered in a military operation since WW2. If that 13.5k number is to be believed. Keep the context of when I brought this up. I brought this up to say that the Ukranian estimation of 13.5k total Russian dead, wounded and captured is insane. I wasn't comparing the entire conflict as a whole to other entire conflicts, I was just talking about the military losses of the global power here. The reason this is significant is to showcase just how poorly this is going for the Russians. They're on pace to lose more men in Ukraine in a few months than they lost in 10 years of Afghanistan.
You didn't bring the context, you're bringing it now and... FFS duh!
Imagine that this is the first conflict of armies from the top25 armies of the world. Russia is there 2nd or 3rd(can't remember), Ukraine was 22nd. And according to the miscelanous sources it's an equal footing - 200k "professional" soldiers of Russia against similar sized Ukraine army (yes, Russian forces have 900k, but at the same time they didn't deploy it all). Yes, Russia has huge advantage in the tanks, air, nuke, artillery, rockets - but so far only the last 2 things were massively used.
So - yeah, duh. We're watching a conflict of two similarly sized armies which are among the best in the world. So unsurprisingly, there are big losses and big fights.
*since the WW2
|
It just begs the question though. Why did Moscow think that this was going to be so fucking easy?
They really did just buy their own brand of bullshit and believed the Ukranians weren't going to resist.
|
On March 16 2022 06:17 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 06:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Your original comment didn't include anything about restricting losses to a European or Western military. Though right now it's debatable if Russia can be included as Western military to be honest. Your original comment seemed wierdly indifferent to deaths and suffering around the world in wars since WW2. Besides the various Yugoslav wars seemed somewhat comparable. How quickly do some people forget or simply do not know. Oh my lord. Look at my original response. It was expressing disbelief to the Ukranian estimations because of what that would mean in comparison with other military operations. I was never being indifferent to other sources of suffering, that just wasn't what the original context was talking about.
I am just telling you why you got the responses you did.
Oh my lord indeed, to think we can somehow mindread your original context, to go back in time and talk about your present context.
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On March 16 2022 06:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
It just begs the question though. Why did Moscow think that this was going to be so fucking easy?
They really did just buy their own brand of bullshit and believed the Ukranians weren't going to resist.
How did you get the idea they think it would be easy? From what reliable source? 
One of the best blitzkriegs was the original one against Poland - took 7 weeks. Poland is smaller than Ukraine. The other was the French invasion - took 6 weeks.
So far all those "they thought it would be easy" were ideas and probably even projections of the west. I even linked an article from some American school of marines or w/e where they simulated the same type of the invasion with the only difference being that they would use more airforce and were more direct with it. They simulated 6 days of war and ended with the same result, which was kinda spooky IMO.
|
So Slovakia posted how they caught the GRU spy, not sure what their domestic spy agency is called. Seems to be straight out of a movie.
|
On March 16 2022 06:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
It just begs the question though. Why did Moscow think that this was going to be so fucking easy?
They really did just buy their own brand of bullshit and believed the Ukranians weren't going to resist. It's not always easy to predict the course of war. They seemed to be genuinely going off the idea that the Ukrainiane military was not that much different from the one 8 years ago. It may even simply be the case that Putin felt like he had to invade someone somewhere to maintain popularity.
The Russian plan was simply a dice roll, to destroy the air defences, take the local airports and establish a safe air corridor to start depositing troops and riot police. The head of government and military is cut, military is paralysed and collapsed, and themechanised army can just drive down the roads with astonishing speed. If it had worked, we would had been astonished with the speed it all happened. But of course it did not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
