this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
205 points (95.6% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2096 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Out of the half a million troops killed I wonder how many were actually Russians? Doesn't look like things are working out for them.

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 89 points 6 months ago (3 children)

That number doesn't mean KIA. That encompasses all casualties. So if you got arms and legs blown off and can no longer fight, you are lumped into that number. The KIA number is around 130-140k. Which is still a lot of people.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago (2 children)

In context of the war, this number is more relevant. Dead or too injured to fight, fewer troops are fewer troops. It doesn't really matter what percentage in that 466,150 number are still alive when it comes to Russia's chances against the Ukrainian military.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 26 points 6 months ago

Not disputing that. Just that OP labeled them all as killed. Any Russian sent home in a box or carried out on a litter is a win for democracy.

[–] NoiseColor@startrek.website 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Russia has more to spend. Ukraine doesn't which is becoming more and more apparent. Luckily that US bill was approved. But still there will need to be some immense luck and enginuity for Ukraine not to fall. Not to mention for Europe to stop this common delusion, come together and form a modern and strong army to step behind Ukraine with long term support. Probably with soldiers as well.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

How is having more money going to put more people on the ground?

[–] Skua@kbin.social 10 points 6 months ago

They meant Russia has more bodies to spend

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you can expend more artillery, you can use less soldiers.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You can't capture a city with artillery.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

No, that'd be weird. You use artillery and soldiers.

The less soldiers you lose, the more you have left.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago

You can lay siege though. Bomb anything going out or in.

[–] NoiseColor@startrek.website 1 points 6 months ago

When you have better tech, you need fewer soldiers. It's the same with artillery as it is with drones.

[–] xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

If you loose an arm or a leg as a russian fighter, you are not gonna survive. Doubtful you will even be looked at twice. A wounded russian is a MIA russian. Russia is a cold place. Not just literally.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Russia apparently has a deep history of spending enormous numbers of lives for military victories. Unless something changed I wouldn't rely on casualty numbers to indicate if they are close to breaking.

[–] Jakdracula@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Here’s a great illustration of how many people Russia was willing to lose in ww2. I think that mindset is still alive and well today.

https://youtu.be/DwKPFT-RioU?si=kJTzsBFN7WGjEpAv

[–] Skua@kbin.social 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's worth remembering that WW2 was an existential threat to the Soviet Union and most of the people living in it. This war isn't. See how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan turned out.

And, of course, Ukraine was also part of the Soviet Union. Russians weren't the only ones fighting the Nazis on the Eastern Front

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's there in their leaders, sure.

I don't believe the people see it the same way.

[–] Jakdracula@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I’m not hearing a lot about the Russian people being against the war.

[–] felixthecat@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I have. Did you not see there was an open armed rebellion in Russia? Granted it was the Wagner group but still, the people of Russia certainly didn't stop them or unite against the rebellion.

[–] Jakdracula@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

The Wagner group was an attempt at a coup d'état.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 6 months ago

Of course not. They're living in fear of their lives if they critisise the government.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 6 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/DwKPFT-RioU?si=kJTzsBFN7WGjEpAv

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.