this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
548 points (96.9% liked)

World News

38188 readers
1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 54 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

Isn’t it like 350k deployed and 315k dead? Those are insane numbers.

Edit: 315k killed and wounded… not sure of the ratio

[–] [email protected] 52 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

Afaik, it's 315k casualties, not deaths, which basically means "unable to serve". This includes dead, injured, captured, deserted etc. Also keep in mind that this is an Ukrainian estimate which might be inflated.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, you’re right it is killed and wounded. But, these are US intelligence numbers.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

The US has no reason to not tell the truth… wait

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The ratio is almost always 3:1 in all cases. And I think the US has corroborated Ukrainian numbers very closely in the past, so it's probably a fair guess that 100k Russians have died.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I thought in Ukraine it was closer to 2:1 due to poor Russian medical training and supplies.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Let's be real, if you're in power in Russia do you want a lot of wounded returning home from this war? Every soldier returning from the front is a potential threat to your narrative.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Expensive too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

3:1 of 315k is 80k deaths

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

351k according to today's numbers, crossed 350 two days ago.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Is that always how casualty is defined??? I had no idea

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

TIL. Thanks for the power up!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I remember being surprised when I learned that casualty does not necessarily mean fatality. I think it’s a common misunderstanding.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

basically means "unable to serve". This includes dead, injured, captured, deserted etc.

Ah, I didn't know that. I now envision it sometimes going like:
"Poor Steve, a casualty of war."
"What do you mean, he snuck back home and is watching TV in his mom's basement!"

[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago

The accuracy of these numbers is always going to be debatable and the true numbers likely never known but this is what Ukraine is saying what Russian losses are like

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I can't believe we had a Cold War with those guys.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago

Their stockpiles and equipment were neglected over years. They once held a significant strength in their military. But it was systemic corruption that eroded their status as a military superpower. That's clearly a myth at this point, no doubt..

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean, they both have/had rampant corruption and cronyism, so they aren't actually that different. Russia just stopped pretending to be communist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think they are referring to the relative societal priority of maintaining a large modern fighting force. USSR was investing and developing bleeding edge weapons tech. Russia has just been sitting on that same stockpile.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Ehhhh... if you look up the history, they weren't THAT successfully industrious. They had LOTS of engineering screwups all in the name of the motherland. They helped win the war NOT with rampant successful technological advancement, but by throwing insane numbers of people towards Germany.

Not to say they had none, just that there were many, many flaws and shortcutted projects that were never the less still greenlit to much disaster and economic waste.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Sorry are you referring to WWII in a discussion about the cold war, which really wouldn't ramp up for at least 5 years afterwards and would be mostly characterized by the 60s-80s and saying "if you look at the history"??

Maybe you should take a gander at some history books buddy, it's not like 10 years between medieval wars where technology would barely have inched forward, instead being an age of innovation where we went from planes to space travel in <50 years with the Soviet engineering beating the US at 2 out of 3 steps of the space race lmao.

Not to say the soviet Union was some glorious infallible place or anuthing, I just think your comment is absurd and kinda irrelevant.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right, the soviet union wasn't some glorious infallible place. Thanks for agreeing with me.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

That wasn't your comment tho, dumbfuck, your comment was that the soviet union wasn't industrially successful during the cold war. I disagree with you and think the justification you provided for your (shitty and baseless) argument was irrelevant to the discussion. Feel free to prove otherwise, but until then, enjoy deluding yourself into thinking you've won the argument because your ego can't handle the notion of being wrong. Good day sir.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

The Soviet Union included a dozen nations not held by Russia today (one of whom was Ukraine), and Russia has suffered rampant corruption and neglect since the fall of the union 30 years ago

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

What we had was an excuse to spend unlimited money on weapons, destabilizing anti-business foreign governments, and demonizing unions and social programs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Putin confirmed 300,000 in a speech about a week ago.