What facts, if any, are the basis of that first claim? Is it that 90% of the soldiers originally members of the Russian military when the war started have died in the war? That's what I heard, but not sure that's correct. That could mean it was a true statement, but even if it were, it could easily mislead many people into thinking the Russian military now only has 10% of the soldiers it had when the war started.
thank you for your comment. Honestly, I believe it is simply another 100% lie made up out of whole cloth. Having witnessed the lying liars of the US government lying again and again from Viet Nam to Guatemala to Iran and Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, one begins to notice a pattern. They simply lie to us without shame. I believe the numbers are somewhat reversed in reality. That is, the Ukrainians have lost several hundreds of thousands (they're now drafting anything that breathes) and the Russians in the low tens. That's horrific, to be sure. The truth will come out, as it always does, long after the fact.
I agree with you that the US government lies habitually. But why would Russian casualties be an order of magnitude lower than Ukrainian casualties? Maybe there's a plausible explanation for that, but I don't know what it would be. I'm certainly not a military expert, though. At any rate, Russia has a much larger population, so they can tolerate much larger losses. Which means Ukraine likely has little choice at this point but to try to make peace with Russia. Hope that's what happens.
I'm willing to place a hard bet that Ukra losses are FAR in excess of Russian. This reminds me of the body-counts in the Viet Nam War -- they were opposite of reality, too.
Zelenskyy (however we're spelling it this week) set out to make a peace deal. We sent Boris "little Trump" Johnson to put the kibosh on it. It's the US that does not want peace.
Appreciate the dialogue and wish you a great holiday season.
I agree that the US government likely doesn't currently want Ukraine to make a peace deal. The good news is it's getting increasingly difficult to get Congress to approve more money for Ukraine. So the current stance may have to change soon. As you said, Ukraine is quickly running out of people to draft for the war effort. Without soldiers, it won't much matter how much money they have for weapons. Unless we (the US & other NATO countries) send in our own troops. But that doesn't seem at all likely. At least I hope it isn't. 😬
Regarding casualties, why do you believe Ukraine has had far more than Russia? That may well be true. I don't really know. Just curious what makes you willing to place a "hard bet" on that. Are there any plausible sources of casualty data out there? Or convincing arguments about how the Russians are fighting versus how the Ukrainians are fighting that would lead one to conclude that way more Ukrainian than Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded? Or maybe it's just that the Russians are much more willing and able to kill civilians? That is a significant difference. Even if they'd wanted to, the Ukrainians haven't had much of an opportunity to kill large numbers of Russian civilians, since almost none of the fighting has been on Russian territory. So, if civilian casualties are included, maybe that'd make Ukrainian casualties a lot higher.
Not a fan at all of the Epoch Times, but this is a GOOD article on the topic and I do find Col. Macgregor 100% credible on foreign policy issue (and almost 100% deranged on domestic issues)
Simple question: if the Ukra had to mobilize 1 million at outset of the war and just mobilized another million, what does that infer about casualties? 30,000 ? Nope. That would be .03%. Believe me: the body count numbers were 100% phony -- so are the ones peddled by the CIA today.
I just read that zerohedge article. The arguments in it seem plausible, though I have insufficient expertise about military issues to be a very good judge of that. But, yeah, if Russia has a large advantage in artillery and certain other weapons, it does seem like that could explain a large disparity in casualties.
ps. I find this FB blog to be sensible and accurate info on the progress of the Russo-Ukraine War... FAR more reliable than the garbage we are offered in most of our western sources:
Really glad to see that you're enjoying the blog. The hope has always been that there might be some who find it entertaining and valuable. Thanks always for your comments.
I for one am convinced that reports from the Russian MOD have been consistently more reliable and credible than those from Ukraine. This runs contrary to the constant barrage of Russophobic agitprop from our own gov and media, but to me that just lends credibility to my own assumptions because our government has NEVER in my now just shy of 74 years of life spoken the truth about literally anything. I have come to believe that if it comes from the CIA, White House, or State Department, one could bet the opposite of what they are saying and at the end of the year or ten years -- take your choice -- you'd be money up on your bets.
What facts, if any, are the basis of that first claim? Is it that 90% of the soldiers originally members of the Russian military when the war started have died in the war? That's what I heard, but not sure that's correct. That could mean it was a true statement, but even if it were, it could easily mislead many people into thinking the Russian military now only has 10% of the soldiers it had when the war started.
thank you for your comment. Honestly, I believe it is simply another 100% lie made up out of whole cloth. Having witnessed the lying liars of the US government lying again and again from Viet Nam to Guatemala to Iran and Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, one begins to notice a pattern. They simply lie to us without shame. I believe the numbers are somewhat reversed in reality. That is, the Ukrainians have lost several hundreds of thousands (they're now drafting anything that breathes) and the Russians in the low tens. That's horrific, to be sure. The truth will come out, as it always does, long after the fact.
I agree with you that the US government lies habitually. But why would Russian casualties be an order of magnitude lower than Ukrainian casualties? Maybe there's a plausible explanation for that, but I don't know what it would be. I'm certainly not a military expert, though. At any rate, Russia has a much larger population, so they can tolerate much larger losses. Which means Ukraine likely has little choice at this point but to try to make peace with Russia. Hope that's what happens.
I'm willing to place a hard bet that Ukra losses are FAR in excess of Russian. This reminds me of the body-counts in the Viet Nam War -- they were opposite of reality, too.
Zelenskyy (however we're spelling it this week) set out to make a peace deal. We sent Boris "little Trump" Johnson to put the kibosh on it. It's the US that does not want peace.
Appreciate the dialogue and wish you a great holiday season.
I agree that the US government likely doesn't currently want Ukraine to make a peace deal. The good news is it's getting increasingly difficult to get Congress to approve more money for Ukraine. So the current stance may have to change soon. As you said, Ukraine is quickly running out of people to draft for the war effort. Without soldiers, it won't much matter how much money they have for weapons. Unless we (the US & other NATO countries) send in our own troops. But that doesn't seem at all likely. At least I hope it isn't. 😬
Regarding casualties, why do you believe Ukraine has had far more than Russia? That may well be true. I don't really know. Just curious what makes you willing to place a "hard bet" on that. Are there any plausible sources of casualty data out there? Or convincing arguments about how the Russians are fighting versus how the Ukrainians are fighting that would lead one to conclude that way more Ukrainian than Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded? Or maybe it's just that the Russians are much more willing and able to kill civilians? That is a significant difference. Even if they'd wanted to, the Ukrainians haven't had much of an opportunity to kill large numbers of Russian civilians, since almost none of the fighting has been on Russian territory. So, if civilian casualties are included, maybe that'd make Ukrainian casualties a lot higher.
Also hope you have an enjoyable holiday season!
Not a fan at all of the Epoch Times, but this is a GOOD article on the topic and I do find Col. Macgregor 100% credible on foreign policy issue (and almost 100% deranged on domestic issues)
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/400000-ukrainians-killed-action-explains-whole-lot
Simple question: if the Ukra had to mobilize 1 million at outset of the war and just mobilized another million, what does that infer about casualties? 30,000 ? Nope. That would be .03%. Believe me: the body count numbers were 100% phony -- so are the ones peddled by the CIA today.
I just read that zerohedge article. The arguments in it seem plausible, though I have insufficient expertise about military issues to be a very good judge of that. But, yeah, if Russia has a large advantage in artillery and certain other weapons, it does seem like that could explain a large disparity in casualties.
ps. I find this FB blog to be sensible and accurate info on the progress of the Russo-Ukraine War... FAR more reliable than the garbage we are offered in most of our western sources:
https://youtu.be/gjMm4pdujlQ?si=ltTty-E4I-ITQgLa
Really glad to see that you're enjoying the blog. The hope has always been that there might be some who find it entertaining and valuable. Thanks always for your comments.
I for one am convinced that reports from the Russian MOD have been consistently more reliable and credible than those from Ukraine. This runs contrary to the constant barrage of Russophobic agitprop from our own gov and media, but to me that just lends credibility to my own assumptions because our government has NEVER in my now just shy of 74 years of life spoken the truth about literally anything. I have come to believe that if it comes from the CIA, White House, or State Department, one could bet the opposite of what they are saying and at the end of the year or ten years -- take your choice -- you'd be money up on your bets.
Wish you well for the coming New Year 2024.
Thanks, Kenneth! I'll read that and get back to you with my impressions.
Actual intellect is not valued very highly in this country.
a MASTERPIECE of understatement ... heh heh