Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

scorchpork t1_j28mbsb wrote

Reply to comment by danielbot in Ukraine fighting is deadlocked, spy chief Kyrylo Budanov tells BBC by apple_kicks

Ukraine is taking significant loses. They are taking the same amount of military loses as Russia plus civilian according to US estimates. Our news is only highlighting Russian loses as a morale booster and because that is what people want to hear. This has been pretty 50/50 though.

14

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_j28vjxi wrote

Oh it’s nowhere close to 50/50. It’s not 99/1 like Reddit makes it seem but it’s nowhere close to 50/50. The reason Ukraine isn’t advancing is not because they’re taking super heavy casualties. It’s because Russia is successfully throwing meat shields in their way and Ukraine is unwilling to show a similar disregard for their soldier’s lives in order to advance.

24

SiarX t1_j294wv0 wrote

Were not there recently news that Russia lost 100k troops, and Ukraine lost around 100k troops, too?

1

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_j29avdu wrote

You’re including wounded in the “casualty” number. Russia has seen more than 20,000 soldiers confirmed killed. Ukraine has seen about 10,000. And the trend for Ukraine is stable. The trend for Russia is ever increasing.

4

dipsy18 t1_j29s62f wrote

No, confirmed killed for Russia is a lot higher based on reports. Also, since Russia doesn't have proper medics and field hospitals the wounded converted to killed % is high.

1

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_j29srhs wrote

Where have you seen confirmed killed higher? BTW confirmed killed is always lower than the actual number killed because confirming deaths and reporting them takes time and resources.

2

daniel_22sss t1_j29f4dm wrote

" This has been pretty 50/50 though."

50\50? I sure don't see pictures with hundreds of ukranian bodies just lying on the ground, like russian bodies are doing in Bakhmut. Why would they take equal number of casualties, when russian attacks are just blind zerg rushes, while ukranian attacks were smart pushes with combined arms and good strategy? Its closer to 65\35 or even 70\30.

9

scorchpork t1_j29ntj8 wrote

Nonexistence of proof isn't proof of nonexistence. It is hard to parse out non-distorted reality. Most of the media and outlets we are exposed to are pro-ukraine. And it is going to highlight Ukrainian success and undersell any Russian success. Also, the number of loses doesn't necessarily equal the detriment of the lose. Imagine you were in a fight and it were 5 against 3: if both sides lose 2 people is it really 50/50?

Edit: I am pro Ukraine and want to see Russia get their ass kicked. I'm just also skeptical of possibly biased information fed to me.

5

Don11390 t1_j2biots wrote

Independent observers already have noted the incredible disparity between Russian and Ukrainian losses of men and materiel. The Russians have lost much more of both than the Ukrainians, that isn't remotely disputed by anyone who knows the truth.

What is true is that the Russians have a greater potential reserve of manpower and materiel. A Ukrainian unit losing, say, 10 men hurts the Ukrainians more than a Russian unit losing 10 men, if we oversimplify things. Same thing with aircraft and vehicles, armored and otherwise.

However, thanks to Western training and materiel support and Russian corruption and incompetence, AFU units are qualitatively superior to their Russian counterparts. As the Ukrainians themselves readily admit, they're lucky that the opposition is so goddamned stupid; this stupidity has largely neutralized any potential advantage that the Russians had. The Russians have also pissed away materiel that they can't afford to waste on civilian targets for very little gain; the Ukrainians are very much aware that this is a war for survival, and if rolling blackouts are the price to pay for survival they'll gladly pay it.

In any case, if you really want to read between the lines and see what way the wind is blowing, check on the status of Western support for Ukraine. The simple fact is that there wouldn't be this level of support if NATO didn't believe that the Ukrainians didn't have the ability to win.

6

scorchpork t1_j2bkjse wrote

Hard disagree. It is in our interest to have Ukraine fighting Russia, even if they lose. It isn't really hurting us to send the aid, and it is causing Russia to lose face, lose some men, and lose some equipment. We have been supplying Ukraine with defense materials for years (remember the whole 'quid pro quo' ordeal) nobody thought, prior to this year, that Ukraine stood a chance against Russia. And who are these "independent" observers? And as Schwarzkopf once said, "Quantity is a quality all its own"

−3

pro-crastibator t1_j2c00kz wrote

Yep, although both perspectives can be true at the same time. It’s in the US’s interest for Ukraine to survive as Russia’s punching bag for quite a while. Between sanctions and the gradual depletion of their military might, the longer this drags on, the worse it is for Russia (and better for the west). A swift and decisive victory for either side undermines this objective, although ultimately a victory for Ukraine against a heavily depleted Russia would be the best strategic outcome. This could take some time to play out.

2