Russia sustained more than 10,000 casualties in a week, according to statistics from Ukraine’s military, with the fast-approaching winter season unlikely to bring a lull in high numbers of fighters killed and injured in the grinding conflict.
Moscow has suffered a total of 690,720 casualties since February 2022, Ukraine’s General Staff said on Monday. This includes 1,680 fighters being killed or injured in the past 24 hours, according to Kyiv.
This figure also brings Moscow’s total casualties, per Kyiv’s count, to 10,490 in the previous seven days.
Total madness. How are Russians so dumb that they just keep throwing their lives away like this?
Each of them only does it once, and thinks it’s just a matter of luck when it happens to someone else
Casualties are not the same as KIA, and not all WIA are permanently combat ineffective.
Someone who got shrapnel in the leg or abdomen and requires 6-8 weeks of recovery, before returning to combat, is a single casualty.
That same soldier can return to combat, catch a bullet in their arm, and be a casualty again.
That same soldier can return to service three months later, etc.
If after returning to service a 3rd time, they’re eventually KIA, then they would have been counted as a casualty three times.
Not saying this is typical, or that this is indicative of the normal WIA casualty. Just pointing out that a single soldier can be counted as a casualty more than once, and it’s not uncommon.
The Russian government cracks down really hard on anyone daring to protest against the war. You can be jailed for even calling it a war - it’s a “special military operation”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_protests_in_Russia_(2022–present)
They consider vodka a pre-natal vitamin.
How do you know its the truth?
Casualty counts and battlefield losses are disputed during active conflicts, and experts urge caution when considering tallies offered by either party in a war. Moscow and Kyiv very rarely nod to their own casualty counts.
People here get really uppity when you point out that Ukraine’s enemy lossss and casualty reports are likely inflated, because that’s what all militaries do in all conflicts. It doesn’t even always have to do with wartime propaganda, but because it’s hard to accurately tally enemy losses during active conflict.
Anyways, when you point that out the usual responses to point out the patently ridiculous reports on Ukrainian losses that the Russian MoD puts out, as if somehow that means Ukraine’s are accurate.
The best I can say is that Ukrainian reports are almost certainly exponentially closer to reality than Russia’s comically absurd and fantastical figures.
I will finish it up by saying that there are good independent sources who open source intelligence to track verified losses, and air on the conservative side.
That of course means their loss reports aren’t accurate either, but they provide a good figures to be used as a floor for any estimate ranges.
I think that the data Ukraine has on Russian losses is better than in any previous conflict. The drones are constantly flying over the battlefield recording.
I also think that Ukraine has significant political reasons for attempting to be reasonably accurate. They rely on NATO for money, weapons, and supplies. They need to provide an reasonably accurate representation of what they are doing with the resources to keep their suppliers happy.
It doesn’t need to be exact, just a reasonable estimate made in good faith.
So the North Koreans should last about 10 days then.
“Lost” seems disingenuous here if we’re talking about casualties. I thought they mean 10,000 died. Ig in the strictest sense of the word they lost then
That’s usually how it’s discussed.
From a certain perspective, it doesn’t matter whether a given soldier dies or is injured. Either way, it means a combatant was removed from the conflict.
As such, deaths and injuries are grouped together when discussing the “losses” of war.
Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned The Daily Beast). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. See also: Newsweek (2013–present).
Wiki: mixed - Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek’s quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013).
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-casualties-ukraine-fighting-1975746
