Panto_Villan Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Incidentally, on the topic we were discussing a couple of weeks ago, Zelenskyy has now come out and openly said that they deliberately kept the Kursk operation secret from NATO because they’d have been told not to do it. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/08/19/7471037/ Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine, has explained that Kyiv did not warn the world about the preparation of the offensive in Kursk Oblast in Russia because it might have seemed unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted August 20 Administrator Share Posted August 20 8 hours ago, Nigel said: Apparently the figure is a lot more horrific for Ukraine. Russia have lost more obviously but the Ukraine figures are much higher than they would want us to believe. Do you have a source please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozzavfc Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 I don't think there are any public estimates for Ukrainian losses. There was a quote from Zelenskyy when Russian casualties hit 400k stating 31k Ukrainians had died. So people have estimated 180,000 Russians dead out of 400,000 total Russian casualties. 31,000 Ukrainians dead out of about 100,000 Ukrainian casualties. Horrible numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted August 20 VT Supporter Share Posted August 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, limpid said: Do you have a source please? This was from a couple of months back. Its not official of course, but well researched. Start talking about Ukraine at about 17 mins but well worth watching the lot. To cut to the chase the figures are at best 2:1 but could be even 1:1. Edited August 20 by Nigel fixed embed 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 It isn't as clear cut as that either. Ukraine seems to be taking better care of their injured, while Russia's injured are much less likely to ever return to the front, let alone life. There was a piece on this earlier in the war (I think @Panto_Villan posted it). So while the numbers may be similar with regards to injured, Ukraine can and does rehabilitate and return a lot more of their soldiers to the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nigel said: This was from a couple of months back. Its not official of course, but well researched. Start talking about Ukraine at about 17 mins but well worth watching the lot. To cut to the chase the figures are at best 2:1 but could be even 1:1. Thanks. Interesting to watch. For the record, I don't believe that the loss ratio is anywhere near as high as 5:1 in favour of Ukraine, but I'm not totally convinced it's as low as that video is making out. One point raised in the video is that the Russian death figures don't include LPR / DPR deaths. Which is fair enough to an extent (they're not Russians), but omitting them from the conclusion skews the comparison. Those are still forces under Moscow's control that the Ukrainians have effectively chewed up and wiped out. I think this alone explains the supposedly unexpected narrative that emerges from the data where Russia and Ukraine were taking similar losses in the first year or so of the war - because most of the casualties were being inflicted and sustained by the LPR / DPR troops being used in the meat assaults who don't appear in these figures. Now the Russians have to use actual Russians for that job. The other point I'm a bit skeptical about is the data on inheritance claims used to estimate real Russian losses. I think it's fairly likely that's an undercount, as from what I've read it's not unusual for the families of dead Russian soldiers to struggle to get any confirmation of their relative being killed, as it allows the commanders to report lower losses (and thus greater success) and also gives them an opportunity to steal their wages. It also won't account for POWs, for example, although I'm not sure about the relative numbers of soldiers held on each side. Given Russian medical care is much worse than the Ukrainian equivalent, it would be pretty terrible for Ukraine if the raw numbers of deaths on both sides ended up being similar - a much higher percentage of the casualties on the Russian side end up dead compared to on the Ukrainian side, so if the number of deaths is similar than it actually implies Ukraine is taking more overall casualties than Russia. Edited August 20 by Panto_Villan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 I think it's safe to assume Russia is taking a lot more casualties than Ukraine, for the obvious reasons. Russia will cover up deaths and employ idiotic battlefield tactics. I'm not sure the actual hard numbers matter too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 (edited) 9 hours ago, Panto_Villan said: Incidentally, on the topic we were discussing a couple of weeks ago, Zelenskyy has now come out and openly said that they deliberately kept the Kursk operation secret from NATO because they’d have been told not to do it. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/08/19/7471037/ NATO have a lot to answer for in this war. Plenty of blood on their hands. Just doing enough to let Ukraine die slowly. Edited August 20 by villa89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted August 20 Administrator Share Posted August 20 3 hours ago, villa89 said: NATO have a lot to answer for in this war. Plenty of blood on their hands. Just doing enough to let Ukraine die slowly. In what way has the organisation failed to defend it's members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 6 minutes ago, limpid said: In what way has the organisation failed to defend it's members? I'm sure you're aware that he's not criticising NATO for failing to defend its members there, and it's not really tenable to imply that that's the only possible reason one could criticise NATO. That said - I'm never going to be too critical of the way NATO has handled this war. They could have helped Ukraine a lot more than they have, sure, but fundamentally NATO has still provided an enormous amount of financial and military assistance to Ukraine that shouldn't be taken for granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted August 20 Administrator Share Posted August 20 1 minute ago, Panto_Villan said: I'm sure you're aware that he's not criticising NATO for failing to defend its members there, and it's not really tenable to imply that that's the only possible reason one could criticise NATO. That said - I'm never going to be too critical of the way NATO has handled this war. They could have helped Ukraine a lot more than they have, sure, but fundamentally NATO has still provided an enormous amount of financial and military assistance to Ukraine that shouldn't be taken for granted. I think both of you don't understand what NATO is. If you are criticising the efforts of other countries, including those who are members of NATO, then I agree. NATO is a defensive alliance. It cannot act other than in defence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Just now, limpid said: I think both of you don't understand what NATO is. If you are criticising the efforts of other countries, including those who are members of NATO, then I agree. NATO is a defensive alliance. It cannot act other than in defence. I think everyone who posts in this thread has a pretty good understanding of what NATO is. Yes, he's coloquially referring to all of the countries that make up NATO when he says "NATO". But not some of the countries, all of them - because they'll all have to go to war in some future scenario where Russia attacks a NATO member, so it'd be very short-sighted of them to collectively allow Ukraine to lose this war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Contrasts, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) 13 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Contrasts, eh? She’ll be in prison as soon as the Russians figure out how to get to her Edited August 21 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, Genie said: She’ll be in prison as soon as the Russians figure out how to get to her They'll need to cross the river first, building the bridges isn't going so well (NSFW). Ukraine is bringing to bare its incredible FPV prowess again. Spoiler That truck just driving into the river.. Edited August 21 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedClaretAndBlue Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 3 hours ago, magnkarl said: They'll need to cross the river first, building the bridges isn't going so well (NSFW). Ukraine is bringing to bare its incredible FPV prowess again. Hide contents Wow, there’s some serious firepower on show here. Putin cannot even get close to the Ukrainian’s in his own country. Humiliation and a half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 17 hours ago, limpid said: I think both of you don't understand what NATO is. If you are criticising the efforts of other countries, including those who are members of NATO, then I agree. NATO is a defensive alliance. It cannot act other than in defence. How does ‘Operation Allied Force’ fit with that? If NATO chose to it could simply declare a need for a peace keeping force in Ukraine and bomb Russian positions like it did with Serbia. It is a choice that has been made, not some fixed rule that NATO has not done in Ukraine what it chose to do in Yugoslavia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 21 Moderator Share Posted August 21 32 minutes ago, LondonLax said: How does ‘Operation Allied Force’ fit with that? If NATO chose to it could simply declare a need for a peace keeping force in Ukraine and bomb Russian positions like it did with Serbia. It is a choice that has been made, not some fixed rule that NATO has not done in Ukraine what it chose to do in Yugoslavia. Its the other way around surely. There are fixed rules in the NATO charter, they just ignored them in the case of the Kosovo Intervention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 1 hour ago, bickster said: Its the other way around surely. There are fixed rules in the NATO charter, they just ignored them in the case of the Kosovo Intervention And Libya.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts