Ukraine has lost fewer soldiers than Russia to deaths, injuries and captures.
Ukraine has also sustained virtually all of the civilian casualties in the Ukraine War, despite the fact that there have been a handful of notable incursions onto undisputed Russian territory.
Considering that the two sides are nearly even in lives lost and people injured, which is a losing proposition for Ukraine since it has about a third of the population of a Russia.
Likewise, Ukraine's losses in terms of private property and infrastructure has been much greater.
Russia has sustained somewhat more losses in many kinds of military systems, but started with more resources. But Russia has a harder time replenishing military systems that are lost.
The notion of basing casualty estimates based upon data from World War I and World War II seems profoundly misguided.
Mediazone, working with BBC, that hit all the headlines this week with an estimate of more than 27,000 Russian deaths based on publicly available information. . . . Meduza, also working with Mediazone and with publicly sourced info, pegs it at closer to 50,000 fatalities. . . . these estimates are still lower than what’s been out there, including by U.S. officials over the last six months. According to the May Discord Leaks, in February, U.S. officials believed that between 15,500 and 17,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed, with an additional 106,500 to 110,500 wounded. The same assessment said that between 35,000 and 42,500 Russian soldiers had already been killed and 150,500 to 177,000 had been wounded. At the same time the U.K. claimed upwards of 60,000 Russians had been killed.In January, Norway’s Chief of Defence, General Eirik Kristoffersen, claimed that Russia had 180,000 casualties to Ukraine’s 100,000, while U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley was saying Russian casualties are “significantly well over 100,000 now.” These figures of course mix injuries with deaths.
. . . those who think the popular estimates have been suspect point out the math, that 60-65 percent of casualties in the two world wars were due to artillery, and Russia has been firing (reportedly) 10 times as much artillery on the battlefield daily. To their thinking, it would be impossible for Russians to be dying at a 7 to 1 ratio (seven Russians to every Ukrainian), as some have suggested. . . . the Ukraine defense ministry posts a daily report on its website which now lists a cumulative total of 234,480 enemy personnel “liquidated,” as of July 10. Russian government officials have only acknowledged 6,000 casualties since the war began.
From Responsible Statecraft.
2 comments:
Actually, sounds a lot like WW2. Russians had huge losses in the early days, unbelievable almost.
The disparity in artillery is very concerning now. Even decrepit, inferior artillery is better than insufficient artillery.
But, the inference about casualties made in the quoted material just don't cut it.
There isn't good evidence that 60-65% of casualties in this war are from artillery, and there is also a subtle point that the people making that point are considering cannon artillery but not missile artillery. Guided missiles aimed at tanks and IFVs etc. have led to lots of casualties in Ukraine and one guided missile is worth a lot more than one unguided cannon artillery shell since the missile almost always hits its target, but the unguided cannon artillery shell usually misses.
A lot of the losses in Bakhut (I'm sure I spelled that wrong but I'm not bothered to look it up) honestly resemble the losses from the big battles of WWI resulting in massive casualties with little gains as out of touch generals ordered soldiers to storm enemy machine gun pillboxes with vastly disproportionate casualties resulting is mass slaughter of their own troops and minimal losses for the heavy machine gun armed defenders.
Post a Comment