this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
950 points (97.6% liked)

Ukraine

8285 readers
584 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW


Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Beanedwizard@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Does anyone have a source about the Russian attrition rate? I can’t find one

[–] 1st@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's worded in such a way as to be meaningless - half of what? The original number of Russian soldiers, the original number plus Wagner and other extra troops, the current number deployed with/without mercenaries? Plus Russia's numbers don't look like US numbers, don't quite look like Ukraines numbers.

That said heres the first source I found:

Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops. The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.

...

Russia has almost triple that number, with 1,330,000 active-duty, reserve and paramilitary troops — most of the latter from the Wagner Group.

Those numbers refer to the current number of deployed and undeployed Russian soldiers plus mercenaries, which is clearly not the numbers the ad is using.

To be clear, I fully support Ukraine and fully support the US guaranteeing missile manufacturers that we will buy new missiles even if the war ends tomorrow to incentivise greater production. I just think the ad played with the numbers until they said what we want them to say.

Source for both quotes: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

I doubt it will get their support seeing as they’re in bed together.

[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is there hard evidence on the 50% destroyed claim?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PatFussy@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this an AI generated ad? It seems like they tried to fit as many talking points as possible.

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They had to keep it to simple, short phrases for the Republicans

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not only that, but it will take decades and a lot of money to get back to their original military strength.

[–] Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago

It would have taken a decade and a lot of money just to achieve the strength we (and they) thought they were at before the war started.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If you want to sell conservatives on supporting Ukraine, just tell them “it’s for the children.”

That seems to work for everything with them wether it has anything to do with children or not. Also, you could say that Ukraine hates gays. It’s clearly not true, but since when did facts ever matter to them?

Otherwise, they’ll see no benefit in supporting Ukrainian as the personally get nothing from it- and we all know that conservatives don’t care about anything unless it serves them in some way.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›