I don't care who you support, this would be a bad and biased source
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
199 points (91.3% liked)
World News
32306 readers
457 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It's also the only source that publishes. Oryx documentation indicates direct photographic evidence for 50% of the numbers listed here and when you consider that most Russian losses are in areas not easily photographed by civilians this is a strong indicator these reports have some basis in reality. That said, I agree these numbers should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt.
the source (UA general staff) is obviously biased, yes, but we don't know how good or bad it is yet
here's the original source (yes it's facebook): https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid029Hp57mafK62hrb2gQMqQfL8inL45TErQCHSSQWgsBBGvLQZGW7u275LDutt7QZpJl
I’m deleting this comment, what I thought was just an observation seemed to upset instead.
Yeah way more Iraqi civilians died.
That’s a great point. War is so stupid. I bet the collateral numbers from this war will also be depressing
Yep, and as long as war is profitable for the US it will always be something the US is looking to engage in.
You mean where the US and it's allies, with air superiority, carpet bombed the fuck out of civilian centres? Who'd have thought those school children and families cooking their supper wouldn't put up much of a fight?
How many people did the US lose in Vietnam or Korea? How many soldiers has it lost in Ukraine, even?
Fair enough. I didn’t think my comment would incense so many people. I just think it’s interesting how Americans think of war when they really have no concept of all-out war like is happening in Ukraine. That’s all I was trying to convey
Ah, in that case, I apologise and we're in agreement. I construed it as saying the opposite, that the US wins wars without many casualties (relatively speaking) because it's superior rather than because it learned in Vietnam that it can't win conventional wars and so now only targets places that can't really fight back.
I'm afraid that you may have walked into an in ongoing discussion as to whether the US military and NATO are forces for good or are particularly good at what they claim to do. People who dislike NATO and US imperialism can get a bit critical. You can't win though, because now the USians who 'have no [real] concept of all-out war' will be around to get you from the other side. 😬
Think about WWII numbers. About 1,100,000 Soviets died in the Battle of Stalingrad alone.
It may have been different if the west had sent them billions in equipment as aid against the invasion.
Maybe it is because the US invaded a third world country to steal their resources and destabilize it politically and economically in assimetrical warfare and here it a world power against NATO? 🤔
I absolutely LOVE how you're shitting on Americam imperialism here, when Russia is doing the exact same thing you're complaining about? You know, the whole invading Ukraine to steal their resources and destabilize it politically thing, or is it OK when the country is next door instead? 🙂
Russia should continue to be glad they aren't actually fighting NATO yet, they can hardly beat the Ukrainians as it is.
Out of curiosity, have you read any of the following authors' works on imperialism, empire, or the development of capitalism? Hobson, Hilferding, Lenin, David Harvey, John Smith, Michael Hudson, Zac Cope, Anievas and Nisancioglu, Samir Amin? If not, what have you read? Maybe Giovanni Arrighi, Paul Kennedy, or Niall Ferguson? I'm not saying this as a rhetorical 'gotcha'. I'm curious as to how you define imperialism.
Russia should continue to be glad they aren’t actually fighting NATO yet, they can hardly beat the Ukrainians as it is.
I have three questions.
- At what threshold of involvement can it be said that NATO is involved?
- What's NATO's excuse for Afghanistan or almost any of its other wars against third world countries? I use scare quotes here because while it usually fails to achieve it's surface-level, publicly-stated aims, I don't think it did 'fail' in it's real goals. That is, it's impossible to fail by participating in a war when the point of the war is merely to participate in war to make profits for the MIC.
- If Russia's stated aims are demilitarisation and denazification, what does 'beating Ukraine' look like? I.e. are you judging Russia's success or failure according to metrics in which it has no interest?
-- Russia shouldn't invade other countries and kill people there actually
-- Yeah, but what about that other time other countries killed people? Also, had you read Lenin? Lenin has something to do with this actually, also here's a bunch of names. As you can see, that means Russia should invade other countries and kill people actually
I agree, this war is terrible. I wish it could be stopped today. I wish it didn't happen. Yet it has happened and is ongoing. It won't stop, and we can't hasten that end, without a rigorous analysis and understanding of what's actually going on.
Yes, I have read Lenin. Well, I've read a lot of Lenin. Not everything. What do you think he has to do with this war? You know he's been dead for a long time, right?
That bunch of names represents the state of the art in imperialism studies, give or take a few others. I'm listing then because I'm curious about what people have read. It's no use me going off on one about this or that theory if the people I'm talking to haven't read the theory.
Also, you should know, that those writers aren't all in agreement. Hobson, Ferguson, and perhaps Cope and Harvey, for example, would likely be critical of Russia's actions in Ukraine. Like I said, I didn't list them as a rhetorical 'gotcha'; that part of my comment means it cannot be read as something like a trump card to close down the discussion. It's meant to open up the discussion.
I take it that you haven't read any of them and considering your position, I suggest starting with Ferguson and Hobson.
Bad diagram: The comparison period is missing. Is it +- vs yesterday, vs last month, vs last year? Nobody knows and thats why the deltas are meaningless.
It's a daily report with totals for all the way up to the start of Russia's attempt at Kyiv in February of last year. The deltas are simply the change from yesterday's report, and so on...
These have been daily deltas for a long time, this chart comes out every day.
I believe the delta is 1 day. The Ukrainian defense ministry has been posting some variation of these infographics on Facebook each day since the war started.
It’s daily
this is a daily report. Yes it's not great that it doesn't say so on the graphic itself but it's a graphic that is originally posted in an article that provides the right context
edit: the UA general staff apparently post it on Facebook of all places: https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid029Hp57mafK62hrb2gQMqQfL8inL45TErQCHSSQWgsBBGvLQZGW7u275LDutt7QZpJl
32 arty, that's pretty good.
The diagram is roughly, all Russian losses since the start of invasion
Do the missil losses count the ones that were fired and used as intended, or only the ones that were destroyed before being used?
I believe the missile losses count as ones that were successfully intercepted.
Ukraine reporting about Russia, let me be skeptical.
They weren't too far off from the Pentagon's estimates the last time they published. It's not like they are saying that 30 Himar platforms were destroyed yesterday
They weren't too far off from the Pentagon's estimates the last time they published.
They weren't too far off from the Pentagon's estimates the last time they published.
view more: next ›