More than a year after President Vladimir Putin summoned 300,000 draftees to fight in Russia’s war in Ukraine, some of their families are starting to demand that they come home.
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.
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.
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.
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!”
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
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…
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.
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.
I’m talking about the 60/70s where they were legitimately on par (arguably more successful) with their space-tech. Advanced weapons and space-tech are absolutely linked, the entire space race was a thin facade over demonstrating the capacity to deploy novel weapons systems. And, I can’t stress this enough, the USSR dominated in that realm.
I guess what I’m saying is that modern day Russia being a paper tiger is pretty valid… This has been the consensus for a long time in the West. Everything that we are seeing aligns with the rational assessment of military professionals.
That doesn’t mean this has ALWAYS been the case. The assessments of those professionals at the time, was that the Soviet military in the 60s-70s had the capacity to pose a legitimate military threat to the western world.
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.
What we had was an excuse to spend unlimited money on weapons, destabilizing anti-business foreign governments, and demonizing unions and social programs.
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
I don’t think they’re coming home even if (and most likely) dead
Isn’t it like 350k deployed and 315k dead? Those are insane numbers.
Edit: 315k killed and wounded… not sure of the ratio
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.
Yeah, you’re right it is killed and wounded. But, these are US intelligence numbers.
The US has no reason to not tell the truth… wait
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.
I thought in Ukraine it was closer to 2:1 due to poor Russian medical training and supplies.
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.
Expensive too.
3:1 of 315k is 80k deaths
351k according to today’s numbers, crossed 350 two days ago.
Is that always how casualty is defined??? I had no idea
Yes, I recommend checking the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person)
TIL. Thanks for the power up!
I remember being surprised when I learned that casualty does not necessarily mean fatality. I think it’s a common misunderstanding.
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!”
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
Removed by mod
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…
USSR =/= Russian Federation.
I mean, they both have/had rampant corruption and cronyism, so they aren’t actually that different. Russia just stopped pretending to be communist.
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.
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.
I’m talking about the 60/70s where they were legitimately on par (arguably more successful) with their space-tech. Advanced weapons and space-tech are absolutely linked, the entire space race was a thin facade over demonstrating the capacity to deploy novel weapons systems. And, I can’t stress this enough, the USSR dominated in that realm.
I guess what I’m saying is that modern day Russia being a paper tiger is pretty valid… This has been the consensus for a long time in the West. Everything that we are seeing aligns with the rational assessment of military professionals.
That doesn’t mean this has ALWAYS been the case. The assessments of those professionals at the time, was that the Soviet military in the 60s-70s had the capacity to pose a legitimate military threat to the western world.
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.
Right, the soviet union wasn’t some glorious infallible place. Thanks for agreeing with me.
What we had was an excuse to spend unlimited money on weapons, destabilizing anti-business foreign governments, and demonizing unions and social programs.
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
Putin confirmed 300,000 in a speech about a week ago.