Maybe Kirby misspoke? Seems unreal to have 100K casualties in Bakhmut alone.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
I believe this number. They use human wave tactics for a year now in Bakhmut, sometimes 100 dead for 10 meters gained. That includes also the city's surroundings.
That’s an absolutely surreal number if accurate.
That doesn't seem to match at all the intelligence leak, unless somehow most Russian casualties during the entire war were in Bakhmut since December.
Bakhmut does seem to be the most hot area for about half a year, and it's the place where a lot of these Wagner convicts are basically sent to die.
I think it's possible. Prigozhin said that 94 or so were killed yesterday or the day before. 5 months have passed since the start of December. If we use that ~100/day count, it brings us to 15k. And I think the offensives slowed down considerably in the last few weeks, they were much bigger before.
There is a lot there i agree with., but when i said terrorists i meant the people who into a shia/sunna mosques and blew up praying civilian devotees.
And don't forget casualties are not only the dead, but also the injured. A bullet in your leg or some other injury by a nade/shell and you can't fight anymore. The number is definetly realistic.
With one million casualties during Stalingrad, this ironically looks like a Russian progress.
Given its apparent effects it clearly should be a banned one though.
According to US intel, Russia have lost as many as 100 000 soldiers since December (20 000 dead). The loss figures on the Ukrainian side is by all accounts not comparable.
Tactically, they are quite useful, but I agree with your overall sentiment.
It's an incomprehensible amount of misery and death.
Update from terrorist Girkin:
I suspect the numbers will be higher than previously reported, especially given how the Russians tend to suppress their casualty figures from the public.
Okay. So what is UA's number? How many populations do both countries have?
I think Ukraine had a pre-war population of 44M but I recall reading that was a 2001 census so very long ago. And now it's likely lower due to the big amount of refugees.
Russia's population is about 140M.
German government confirms the delivery of the second IRIS-T SLM battery last week: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992
Yeah, I am asking him some questions. It is good to say that the UA wasted so many RA troops, but that is just a one-sided story. We don't know how many UAs were lost in that. Even with 100k casualties, the RA is inching closer to taking the whole city there. There are reports of UA not having enough artillery fire just recently whereas RA were using it like hell. There is no way that UA didn't have to pull a lot of reserves to defend it for ages, resulting in depleting its own manpower and resources. There is not much long-term advantage to it, and sadly, the UA does not have many alternatives.
It is not mentioned that if the city fails, how many men does UA have to use to take it back? Where would the next fight be like this one? My point is that losing that city cannot be called irrelevant. If anything, it is the total opposite in the minds of both UA and RA.
Last edited:
Canadian KIA.
So insightful.
Population is just a number in this sense. Ukraine have a standing army of 688 000 soldiers, and around 400 000 in reserves. It's hard to imagine that Russia anytime soon can employ numbers matching that. Military equipment is more important anyway, and with Russia's financials struggles and with continuing Western aid to Ukraine, time is on Ukraine's side. Whether Ukraine will be able to take back all the occupied areas is a big question, but I doubt Russia will advance more than they already have. It's more likely that Ukraine will take some back in very close future. Basically, Russia's winter offensive has been a huge failure, and the fight for Bakhmut has been especially costly. There are reports today that Ukraine have actually been able to take over some Russian positions in Bakhmut, which might indicate the tipping point is already here. Let's hope.
It might be important symbolically - for the Russians to have something to show for. What I said, is that Bakhmut is rather irrelevant strategically - as pointed out by many, e.g. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64877991
But the UA president pointed out (assuming he got advice from his generals) that it was important because he said that once it failed, it would open up a lot of problems defending the cities behind that line. So it is definitely relevant strategically for them. All of these media outlets and experts have said a lot of things, and they don't always get it right.
And if it was symbolic, it is still very important to hold it, as he stated in his address to the U.S. Congress. You know, morals and all, especially after losing so many men for that.
I've seen a few of these reports of Ukrainians hitting Russian positions behind enemy lines. Wonder if this is the first inkling of a counteroffensive.
War on the Rocks podcast suggested a more Kherson style counteroffensive than a Kharkiv style. ISW uses the term interdiction, which I had to look up last year. I expect a lot of Russian bases and transport hubs to be hit over the next few weeks so they aren't able to respond when the breakthrough comes. (can't remember which lengthy twitter thread that came from)
It could be. They did the same in Kherson. Before the actual push on the ground, they shelled ammunition depots and troop concentrations for days and weeks. Russia couldn't keep up with logistics on the right side of the river, so they retreated. The logistics are key in every battle. If the front line is deprived of reinforcements and weapons, they can't put up much of a fight. I'm pretty sure that is also what Nato is advising them. This way, they also save considerably more troops than Russia with their human wave tactics and that is important for the long run.
He is surprisingly on point more often than not, which is why so many Ukrainians actually read him (without forgetting that he's a war criminal and one of the most influential figures behind the very origin of this conflict). Who knows how he has managed to avoid getting himself arrested up to this point though — there's no doubt about his extremely pro-Russian allegiance but almost any of his summaries can get him like 7 years in prison for the "discrediting of the Russian army".
Girkin is unironically probably more competent than the likes of Shoigu and Gerasimov.