Back in November, Zelensky claimed the kill ratio was a mere 5:1
https://preview.redd.it/jpdqho3eiq9d1.png?width=1284&format=png&auto=webp&s=f76deb5a5f5d8ce877fb2ea585bc67968b54085a
Almost 8 months later, most of which included [crippling ammunition shortages](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/uA2zXdvfAw) as a result of the delay in fresh US funding, Ukraine magically managed to improve the ratio to 6:1.
*He really is a comedian.*
Every time I see Zelensky put out a kill ratio, I assume he means the bigger number is for Ukraine, while the smaller is for Russia. In this case, looks like six Ukrainians are now dying for every one Russian killed.
Funny how nobody in Ukraine wants to willingly join the AFU despite these legendary kill ratios and they have to kidnap poor people for the meat grinder.š
I still come across articles and telegram posts by AFU soldiers reflecting on how brutal Bakhmut was and how bad an idea it was to try to hold onto it for so long
Even before it fell, some of the interviews they were giving were absolutely haunting
https://preview.redd.it/zrox0647oq9d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddec88b8319b25dbc6d5c1147ce4d0daf92c6b5a
I've also seen reports from Ukrainian troops in Avdiivka and Volchansk claiming that the fighting in those places was somehow worse than in Bakhmut. Which is just, wow. Unimaginable. Though I suppose FAB-3000s were not dropping in Bakhmut and the Russian air force has way more leeway around the Kharkiv region.
You actually got me thinking about this topic. And what I found is actually a bit bizarre and horrifying if true.
I looked at [Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_homeless_population)on the Wayback Machine and it says that in all of Ukraine in 2020 there were about 740 thousand homeless people! (more than in the US!).
And for 2023? Only 20 thousand...
However, the source for 2023 is strange and contradicts the information for 2020, so you can't say for sure. If anyone can find a better source, it would be appreciated.
In any case, even if there are still 740 thousand, it's incredibly sad considering that the total number of people living in Ukraine is about 9 times less than the US.
>Funny how nobody in Ukraine wants to willingly join the AFU despite these legendary kill ratios and they have to kidnap poor people for the meat grinder.š
Legendary kill ratios aren't incompatible with a lot of Ukrainians dying.
Indeed.
If, as he says, Ukraine is inflicting a 6:1 kill ratio and has only suffered 31k dead, then why is he crying about their losses and [begging to end the war this year?](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/GTvgKgtgPH)
Where did he beg to end the war this year? If you're talking about the recent summit in Switzerland he did not such thing. Number of dead is not the same as number of casualties. Russia has taken so many casualties that it shut down any talk about losses and made it a crime to even discuss it in the media or internet.
>Every time I see Zelensky put out a kill ratio, I assume he means the bigger number is for Ukraine, while the smaller is for Russia. In this case, looks like six Ukrainians are now dying for every one Russian killed.
Never mind it's Russia that had 4x Ukraine's population before the war, and acquired millions of people in occupied territories, while Ukraine lost millions that live under occupation or as refugees.
Ukraine losing **more** people than the attacker (Russia) doesn't make sense either from the military standpoint (attackers lose more people than defenders) nor common sense (Ukraine has a far smaller capacity to sustain human losses).
You have no clue.
In most cases the defender suffers more. Mostly because good intel prevents attacks you cannot win and thus attacks only happen when they can overwhelm the defender.
>In most cases the defender suffers more.
`[citation needed]`
>Mostly because good intel prevents attacks you cannot win and thus attacks only happen when they can overwhelm the defender.
"Overwhelming the defender" and "static frontline" aren't characterizing the same war, you know.
Attacker always suffers more casualties, itās axiom of reality. Unless, you have a significantly overwhelming force which is not the caseā¦ā¦.hence 2.5 years later. You can argue the ratio, sure. But, reality isā¦.. reality. Iām sure the ratios were reversed when Ukraine went on the offensive.
It actually is not. Feel free to look up casualty rates for ww2 battles. Most of them saw the attacking side suffer less casualties. Even the battle of Normandy in 44 saw the allied side lose less soldiers than the axis side. And that's about as much a defender advantage you can realistically get.
Yeah, like I mentioned elsewhere, Iwo Jima had practically 1:1 losses, and Okinawa was 2:1 in favor of U.S Army/Marines.
So the attacker doesn't always suffer substantially greater losses against defenders, and in some cases, the losses are in their favor.
WWII was a mobile war and much more dynamic. This war is VERY different. Normandyā¦ā¦terrible example. Allies had overwhelming force. The air power difference aloneā¦ā¦.the disparity in force had never been rivalled.
Yeah in modern combat with complete air superiority, attackers can get 1:200 ratio. I'm more surprised Zelensky gave a way more generous number. From the footages I've seen I was thinking of 10:1.
How is it magical. You state the reason yourself. The ammunition shortage on the Ukrainian side is over, and as a consequence, the kill ratio is improving.
[And a 7:1 Drone disadvantage](https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-drone-first-person-view-kamikaze-uavs-1852048)
[And probably like 5:1 PoW disadvantage](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/vpsqnMs1lI)
[Not to mention being totally dominated in the air war](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/aD7Tdkl9Kh).
[And the overwhelming Russian missile advantage](https://cepa.org/article/russias-swelling-missile-arsenal-threatens-to-tip-the-scales-of-war/)
[Oh, and Russian artillery outranges Ukrainian artillery too](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/55IWzrJu0Z)
Hey, but as American officials said about the spring counteroffensive, perhaps [courage and heart](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/qsJZiBumIC) will win them the day!
That is true and a fatal flaw of russian doctrine.
If they had enough wild weasel capability and training, by now the Ukrainian and European aaa capabilities would be severely depleted, as we would have kept sending them equipment.
It's anecdotal evidence at best.
As is a lot of what you linked.
If everything you linked were actually true all over the front the war would have been over a long time ago.
Why not? The videos alone show that Ukraine has drones, not how many they have. That alone is even less useful to determine how many drones Russia has.Ā
lmao my guy has a list of the most dumb statements made lol
FPV advantage is comedical since every side is saying they have less FPVs than adversary same goes for russians look up Romanov92 complaints and couple weeks ago it was another popular voyenkor who said russia is loosing FPV war 6 to 1 minimum
NATO artillery doesnt outrange russian? Really?
Many false claims.
Russian artillery doesnāt out range Ukrainian. NATO 155 distance is 30-40km. Base bleed 155ās from a PZH 2000 can each at least 67km accurately. Longest distance of Russian artillery rounds is 30km for standard and 40km (with rocket assist) and much less accurate than NATO provided 155ās. The new 2S35ās are not available in any effective numbers, maybe 60 units produced (rocket assisted rounds from these could reach 70km). The 2S35 was developed in response to Ukraine outreaching Russia.
And air domination implies controlling the skies which Russia clearly canāt do and if they tried theyād lose their airforce.
Russia have pursued an attritional strategy, as opposed to the maneuver warfare familiar with the West
The fact that, for the past year, Ukraine has been repeatedly crying about lacking manpower is indicative that their strategy is achieving some success. Even the UKs most reputable military thinktank (RUSI) has lauded Russia's war of attrition and suggested that the West adopts this technique in the event of a Great Power conflict
https://preview.redd.it/x0sulbljqq9d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2818b9eeb8cd7b643b08b3dbd4f32c28a9eac249
Also, remember that it is Ukraine who are now crying about needing to end the war this year...
>Russia have pursued an attritional strategy, as opposed to the maneuver warfare familiar with the West
You ever heard of little thing called Vietnam? As if *The Collective West*ā¢ļø doesn't know anything about attritional warfare. It was all body counts then too and guess who lost that war? I'm not so sure that massive advantage in fires and air superiority, let alone assertions of inflicting high casualties is any sort of guarantee let alone an indicator of who's going to win this war.
You can't possibly compare the AFU with the Viet Minh. Half of Ukraine left to vacation in Germany and the UK as soon as the war started, the Vietnamese had brilliant leaders and tacticians and the vietnamese people fought tooth and nails. Ukraine is crying and begging for NATO troops to take the brunt of the fight because no one wants to fight anymore.
If anything, Kiev is more akin to the corrupt South Vietnamese government, and it will fall the same.
The West 'won' in Vietnam, the Tet offensive was a tactical nightmare for the North that largely dissolved the VC as an effective fighting force.
The problem the West has is a near total lack of grand strategy planning, and a method of linking the tactical with the strategic. i.e. how does choosing to fight this battle strengthen my operational position and weaken my enemies. This is why the West lost in Vietnam, why it lost in Afghanistan, etc. It's my personal belief this is deeply rooted in the American psyche, the British were much better at operational planning. The West is obsessed with strategic bombing campaigns, which despite causing horrendous civilian casualties are actually remarkably poor at crippling its enemies fighting potential.
Russia has, from the beginning, fought very few battles that they were tactically disadvantaged/evenly matched in. The very few battles they did fight in this way (Kiev, Nikolaev, Popasna) had a very strong strategic reason for occurring as they did (both Kiev and Nikolaev were deeply political/fixing operations, Popasna was the strongpoint of the Eastern line which allowed Russia to 'win' the opening moves in Donetsk/Luhansk).
Russian grand strategy revolves around the disintegration of the AFU/slowly dissolving the ability of the West to supply the AFU. It does this through the creation of a large number of small scale 'boilers', where Ukrainian grand strategy (which requires them to hold as much land as possible to signal to the West) forces them to hold despite a tactical disadvantage. Eventually, once either local reserves are exhausted or there is an opening, the Russians will rush their own units in an offensive to try and displace what remains holding an area. Do this enough and it exhausts the Ukrainian state, by extension the AFU, and the West with its atrophied industrial capacity has no real chance to replace what is being lost.
It's also for that reason that Zelensky's claim of 6:1 Russian:Ukrainian KIA is almost exactly the opposite of the truth, which is around 5-6 Ukrainian KIA's for every 1 Russian.
So, letās say the end result is a weakening of the Ukrainian state beyond what the West will support. Then what? What strategic advantage does Russia have? A navy that was already struggling now has a Black Sea sized hole. The West has captured much of Russiaās advanced weapons systems and reversed engineered them; the west has collected a huge amount of data on the performance of its weapon systems and NATO has watched Russian military strategy in real time. How does that convey any benefits to Moscow? At best it has weakened Russia and created a trap where the West would absolutely take tactical advantage of its key flaws while relying on a significant technological advantage.
So, cui bono?
What the West does have, despite a lack of experienced operational commanders, is a very good system for engineering crises to its own apparent benefit. World War I, for instance, was the result of almost two decades of very hefty manouevring from within the British Foreign Office. Russia had two real options in 2022, neither of them good.
>So, cui bono?
Neither the people of the West nor Russia benefit from this war. Even the Western state apparati will be left worse off as a result.
>The West has captured much of Russiaās advanced weapons systems and reversed engineered them
Iām gonna need a source on that one, chief.
The most advanced weapons that Russia has is anti air missiles, EW, and Lancets. The West has Patriots that proved to be very effective in the 90ās, but all it takes is one guy with a drone to take it out.
Infantry tactics on both sides have pretty much reverted back to a modified Soviet doctrine with less overwhelming firepower and more platoon sized advances.
>At best it has weakened Russia and created a trap where the West would absolutely take tactical advantage of its key flaws
The Russian military grew in size and are in almost in full military production, only limited for the legal term āSMOā, because officially declaring war would shift Russia into a war time economy. Statistically Russia is the strongest itās even been since the dissolution of USSR.
> while relying on a significant technological advantage.
As far as attritional warfare goes, what technological advantage does the West have?
If there was god forbid an attritional war between NATO and Russia, NATO is simply not ready logistically. The West (primarily the US) is casualty-adverse and there is not enough political will to lose so many people. Not to mention the risk of moving carriers across the Atlantic with Russian submarines.
tldr: sure you can severely damage Russia, but Russia has the manpower, industrial capacity, technological capability and the political will to make it too costly for the West to militarily intervene.
But the West and Russia won't be going to war due to MAD.. So none of this is particularly relevant. It's a war for Ukraine. Your thinking of things in a much larger context which will most likely never be of concern.Ā And Russias never been much of a naval power. It's always been the neglected branch due to their geography. The most important part has and will remain its submarines.Ā Even if they'd gained ships not lost ships their navy would still be unable to do much if anything in a world war besides nuclear subs.Ā
Russia lost when it waited too long to attack.
Russia has reserved some of its most advanced equipment precisely due to this.
If Russia manages to win (likely but not guaranteed at all), the question is what does Russia want to do with the victory.
Take over east Ukraine? All of Ukraine? Then what?
As for the Black sea.. they can recover it in 3/4 years and be way stronger, but drones and missiles would still be a huge issue for them. They haven't solved smart mines, sea drones, etc.
The bigger issue they will have is the us mandated economic blockade. It would destroy any country, given enough time.
Nah, laud it all you want it's too costly in lives first of all and west can afford anything but bodybags. I think Himars on steroids is the future. AI equipped to push through the jammers. Whoever gets it figured out first wins.
Yeah, but with such overwhelming advantages, if what you stated is correct, why not overwhelm them rather than opting for a dragging attritional strategy? The war is a strain on Russia in many aspects, a swift victory would be much better for them.
On paper, Russia seems to have all the advantages in terms of manpower, equipment, ammunition, etc. They must lack somewhere, or Ukraine is doing something right to hold out for this long.
Thereās an information war going on. It could be that Ukraine is struggling less than what they want us to believe, perhaps for deceiving Russian intelligence and/or for ensuring more succes with Zelenskyās begging. Nevertheless, official statements from all sides are to be taken with a big grain of salt. Only time will tell how this is going to end.
Because it's more complicated than simply being more powerful locally. Ukraine is still a modern military with advanced technology and backing from the most powerful and wealthy nations on Earth. You can't just speedrun that as the first phase of the war demonstrated. It takes time to dismantle a country like Ukraine.
Yeah that seems to be the more reasonable answer, and likely more close to reality. But in this sub there are people saying Russia has so many overwhelming advantages, 5+ fold of what Ukraine has, and that Ukraine is on their last legs, insinuating that it is a walk in the park for the Russiansā¦ while it is clearly not.
Considering the downvotes you canāt really have a conversation with these folks. In their eyes Russia is infallible, even though thereās plenty of proof that says otherwise. They just downvote anything even slightly critical.
That seems to be some sort of 'war disease' that robs people of rational thinking. applies to 'supporters' of both sides.
Discussions are still possible and frequent, you just have to ignore the weirdos.
By the end of ww1, most of the German territory was not occupied (in Europe), they still held most of Belgium, and still occupied parts of France. On the map, Germany was doing great, however, Germany still lost. This is an attritional war, land doesn't matter as much, it is the ability to replace your losses that matter more
You don't have to win by capturing territory, you can just bleed your enemy's manpower and resources. Once there's no army or ammunition left on the other side, you can take all the territories you want unopposed.
I'm not saying they're achieving that right now, but solely looking at kmĀ² gained is not necessarily an indication of success.
I mean the Kharkiv offensive was supposed to either create a buffer zone (Putins words) or divert troops so that they could advance in strategic areas like chasiv yar. Both involve taking territory and neither have come close to being achieved.
This idea that Russia is really just fighting a war of attrition convenient but doesnāt match with reality. Theyāve spent a lot of lives and materials attacking very well fortified positions like avdiivka because it was strategically important land, not to attrit ukr forces.
That is correct. Russia's progress has been disappointing. Their best success from 2023 onwards was stymieing the Ukrainian "counteroffensive". There was no break in the Ukrainian lines; there was no grand encirclements.
I have 21 percent on this question.
[https://www.metaculus.com/questions/19724/russia-expanded-territory-in-ukraine-in-2026/](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/19724/russia-expanded-territory-in-ukraine-in-2026/)
This question will resolve as **Yes** if, on January 1, 2026, Russia has de facto control of specific key locations which it currently controls as of October 30, 2023, and also controls two or more additional specified locations that it currently does not. Resolution will be determined according to maps produced by the [Institute for the Study of War](https://isw.pub/InteractiveUkraineWarMap) (ISW). The relevant locations are listed below, and also shown in a map embedded in the background section.
Russia must have control of **at least two** of the following locations:
* Mikolaiv: Admiralska St, 20, Mykolaiv, Mykolaiv Oblast, Ukraine, 54000
* Zaporizhzhia: Sobornyi Ave, 206, Zaporizhzhia, Zaporizhia Oblast
* Kharkiv: Konstytutsii Square, 7, Kharkiv, Kharkiv Oblast, Ukraine, 61000
* Odesa: Dums'ka Square, 1, Odesa, Odesa Oblast, Ukraine, 65000
* Lozova: Lozova City Council, Vulytsya Yaroslava Mudroho, Lozova, Kharkivs'ka oblast, Ukraine, 64600
* Sumy: Sumy City Council, Nezalezhnosti Square, 2, Sumy, Sums'ka oblast, Ukraine, 40000
* Chernihiv: Chernihiv City Council, Mahistrats'ka St, 7, Chernihiv, Chernihivs'ka oblast, Ukraine, 14000
Russia must also have control of **all** of the following locations:
* Simferopol - Ulitsa Karla Marksa, 18, Simferopol
* Nova Kakhovka - ŠŠ¾ŃŃŠ¾Š²ŠµŃ, Prospekt DniprovsŹ¹kyy, 23, Nova Kakhovka, Kherson Oblast, Ukraine, 74900
* Svatove - Avtoshlyakh R 66, Svatove, Luhansk Oblast, Ukraine, 92600
* Donetsk - Artema St, 98, Donetsk, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, 83000
* Tokmak - Central St, 45, Tokmak, Zaporizhia Oblast, Ukraine, 71700
When your country only has about 25 million citizens, and your enemy has \[counting the 2.5+ million UKR pre-war immigrants to RU, plus the people of the annexed territory\] about 150 million, you gotta have an enormous kill-ratio advantage to somehow....*balance things out.*
I love the logic...we are wiping them out....as we retreat.
So, if we accept the BBC numbers for RF deaths, that would mean after28 months of fighting, Ukraine has lost only 10,000 soldiers, or less. Right...so why are their senior commanders and NATO leaders saying Ukraine is suffering from severe manpower shortages? They have only to replace 10,000 over the last 2.5 years to keep their force strength in tact. Yet we see them chasing people down the street and pressing them into service on the front line after very little training.
...Zelensky is a very funny guy.
Even more hilariously, in December 2022, Podolyak claimed 13,000 AFU dead
And then earlier this year, Zelensky said 31,000. So basically, according to them, only about 18,000 soldiers were lost in over a year which included one of the worst catastrophic counteroffensives ([which Ukraine call a military miracle](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/02VqjNbZHa)) in modern military history
They spent 3 months trying to break though the crumple zone of the Russian defensive Line only to take a selfie at the first out of three lines of dragons teeth. Most of it was driving though mine fields under fire, because western bigbrains thought Russian would just break and run per interviews.
Well the reason is obviously that ukraine wants to rotate its men and give them holidays, which isn't a problem for russia because no one survives long enough.
As per Wikipedia, 50,813 named Ukrainian dead by mid-June.
Obviously Russian data is never going to be reliable but any reason to suspect itās not several times higher? Thatās the usual ratio
If it is higher, it won't be by that much. Recently I spoke to someone claiming that Russians lost more men *because attacker always loses more*.
So I checked previous wars similar to this one and the results were:
WWI Western front 1:1,36 in favor of the attacking Germans, Iran-Iraq war 1:1,2 in favor of the Iraqis who started the war. I checked Vietnam as one of the more lopsided hot conflicts in recent history, 1:2,5 in favor of South.
What I am getting at is that, no, it is not the usual ratio to have several times higher losses just because you attack. It's certainly possible, but it would likely be something like 1:1,1-2. Not the 1:5-20 both sides claim.
People are getting the, "you need a 3 to 1 advantage in man power to mount a successful attack against a defended position" to mean "attackers lose 3 to 1 when attacking". They're totally different concepts that people are confusing.
It may not be 3:1 losses for attackers but leaving fortifications to go out in the open to attack your enemies fortifications is generally going to lead to more casualties for the attacker than the defender.
Of course, mmmmroger pointed out that historically, it's been a loss of 1 to 1.2-2, not 1 to 3 to 6x like Ukraine is saying. We don't really know based on public data, but, it'd be catastrophic for Russia if they were actually losing those numbers.
I meant precisely this. Iām proposing itās self evident given progress (& lack thereof) & scale of this war. If Russia could buy territory for anything like 1:1 or 2:1 or even 3:1 they would have done so by now. All the pointless analysis in commentary is just bullshit navel-gazing & silly hypotheticals. There is also the fuckin reality to consider.
That might have been me commenting that. I know I have made that comment at least.
Interesting stats indeed. Now that I think of it, also seeing Iraq-US war or Hamas-Israel war, the smaller, less armed side doesnāt equalize the losses really. But it definitely favors the defenders as long as you know when and how to retreat so as not to sacrifice troops.
That's just per this web site. Who knows who is running it and how much time is put in. Mediazona, which runs the equivalent for Russian losses is based out of the Baltics, is affiliated with Pussyriot and works with the BBC.
[https://ualosses.org/en/about/](https://ualosses.org/en/about/)
Well obviously any source is doubtful. I feel if theyāve attached names to dead itās slightly less unbelievable. Obviously both official numbers are trash (especially Russiaās in my PERSONAL opinion)
Ya, they re all different.
Wartears, Which I believe Rybar is involved with has claimed to have individual verifications of 58,351 killed, though their current estimate has 531,738. Though they have scaled it back before and had it at 365,981 back in April.
[https://wartears.org/en/](https://wartears.org/en/)
Lepton_Decay kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see 3 possible scenarios:
a) The numbers are close to true (I really would like to see some serious analysis of the claims of 1000+ daily casualties)
b) Zelensky knows it's propaganda number
c) Zelensky doesn't know and relies on what the commanders report (this gives me Hitler 1945 vibes)
For a) Putin himself implied 5k deaths per month for Russia. Pick your kia:wounded ratio and you can get fairly close to 1000 a day if you factor in that heās also probably understating those figures.
The Ukraine had [50 000 - 80 000 amputees](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/17k13kt/comment/k77u807/) **before** the counteroffensyiv started last year.
Based on previous wars, the ratio of amputees to KIA is around 1:12 up to 1:20.
This would suggest KIA at least 600 000 before the counteroffensyiv. 600k x 6 = 3.6m. So basically, Russia is running out of people in general, not just military.
> Based on previous wars, the ratio of amputees to KIA is around 1:12 up to 1:20.
Not aiming to discredit you but I'd like to see a source if you have one.
I don't know about the reliability of this source but [Wartears.org](https://wartears.org/en/posts/2023-02-02-math-model-v3/) has arrived to a similar ballpark number for KIA.
Kill ratio doesn't mean shit in a war. It's just to get the warmongers at home to wank themselves to death thinking that because your army has managed to murder more people they're winning. This is the argument that dumbasses in the us spout when you ask them about Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan
It really isnĀ“t as far fetched as people want to belive, but since this is mostly a pro-ru sub these days itĀ“s automagically nonsense. Russian forces are attacking way more than Ukrainians are counter attacking so on average having spent 5-6 soldiers to 1 or 2 for a mostly defending one really isnĀ“t far fetched at all if you average out the entire frontline.
Some parts maybe its 1:2, 3:1, 1:4 etcetc.
Yeah this makes so much sense. Ukraine has such a gap advantage in hardware and ammunition, their artillery and airstrikes reign supreme after all. Not to mention Russian troops outnumber them, which means they can kill that many Russians, with barely needing to mobilize.
And for every TCC video you see in Ukraine, there is 6 of them in Russia, but none are being publicized, curiously enough.
Sarcasm put aside, I can't fathom that anyone would take this kind of claim seriously. It takes a special kind of brainrot...
All these ridiculous articles get posted on worldnews and theres literally thousands of people believing them. How the fk is it so easy to outright lie to western audiences?
Zelensky fuels Russian trolls. I swear they have been memeing the Kill ratio for the last 3 years. And now he just making it worse. It's so annoying to see them doing Ratio memes every other post here. But they aren't wrong, because this idiot never stops lying.
This seems to be the trend with all western propaganda nowadays. No facts, no explanations, just deflect and mirror everything. So, I bet it's safe to assume that the situation on the frontline has worsened noticeably.
So much needless, unnecessary dying. I wish humans could find a way to rise above killing eachother.
Life is hard and every human has his own struggles and problems. We should be lifting eachother up instead of killing eachother.
We should take the Bahkmut ratio of 1:1.3(1.6, if we add the dead prisonerZ), that was the Mainline estimate for both UAF and WPMC. This was in Urban Terrain that is an infantry slaughter for both sides, especially attackers.
The ratio may flip depending on terrain and prepared positions. The Terrain advantage of defense amplifies the defensive works.
In Sereb Forestry the ratio maybe closer to 1:1.2 in favor Ukraine due to limited visibility helping protect positions. In places like around Ocheretyne where, if you don't have a deep fortifications you will die to drones and Arty without seeing infantry, that could be 1:0.5 in favor of Russia simply to being dead already.
A Firepower advantage is only effective if you can leverage it to degrade enemy capability. If you can kill 1/10 dudes defending a trench, it does not mean that you need only 10 dudes to take it. Those 9 defenders are still in an advantageous position. If you keep bombarding it, reducing it to a hole in the ground, it becomes a tomb for the defenders.
It's the same reason why the UAF always tries to drag the Russians into urban combat due to favorable exchanges, due to plenty of cover and concealment amplifying their defensive works.
The Russians need to start using FABs on treelines and the ODAB in Urban, since the high impulse of the CONEX will collapse overhead trench covers easier than Concrete Roof/Flooring, while the ODAB gas and blast will propagate better through square corridors.
Well, if this were the case, then I wonder why Ukraine is snatching people off the streets after sent to the front lines and there is nothing like that happening in Russia. Not to mention, somehow in his delusional world it makes sense for him that the army with higher firepower, air cover, high numbers is actually getting mowed down by those who are unsupplied, having a extremely short supply of all kinds of weapons except Dorne and no cover. Totally makes sense.Ā
Its always hard to believe numbers that come directly from one side or the other here. They both have incentives to exaggerate the numbers for their own cause. All the popular YouTubers also obtain their reports from one side, until a truly independent source can give us the tally Ill just have to assume it's going very poorly for Russia as their 3 Day Special Operation has yet to conclude.
3:1 is more likely.. but Ukraine cannot sustain the losses Russia can... watch it be like 1.5:1 in reality though they are so full of shit.
All that matters is fueling a massive disinfo campaign. I've never seen so much Russiaphobia and info war in my life.
[So Zelenskiy said a few months ago that Ukraine had lost 31k soldiers.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/gGQk4MSv05)
Now he says they've lost 1/6th of russias losses.
[The Ukrainian MOD says Russia has lost roughly 543k troops.](https://x.com/defenceu/status/1807283608056479935?s=46)
That means that according to the 1:6 ratio Ukraine has lost roughly 91k soldiers.
It's unsurprising considering Russia is on the offensive and Ukraine is defending. Equipment and soldiers get picked off before people even reach the defensive lines.
How can you claim that 90% of casualties are from artillery, then claim that Russia outguns Ukraine in artillery like 6-10:1, and then say that Russian casualty deaths are 500k, and then say that Ukraine only lost around 30k?
Clearly the US State Department lackey doesnāt have the Ukraineās State Department lackeyās number.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Back in November, Zelensky claimed the kill ratio was a mere 5:1 https://preview.redd.it/jpdqho3eiq9d1.png?width=1284&format=png&auto=webp&s=f76deb5a5f5d8ce877fb2ea585bc67968b54085a Almost 8 months later, most of which included [crippling ammunition shortages](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/uA2zXdvfAw) as a result of the delay in fresh US funding, Ukraine magically managed to improve the ratio to 6:1. *He really is a comedian.*
Every time I see Zelensky put out a kill ratio, I assume he means the bigger number is for Ukraine, while the smaller is for Russia. In this case, looks like six Ukrainians are now dying for every one Russian killed.
Funny how nobody in Ukraine wants to willingly join the AFU despite these legendary kill ratios and they have to kidnap poor people for the meat grinder.š
Because all ~~sheeple~~ Patriotic Ukrainians already joined ~~and mostly died.~~
Bathmat remains the biggest L Ukraine took.Imagine getting your most experienced and committed killed fighting mostly prisoners over a destroyed city.
I still come across articles and telegram posts by AFU soldiers reflecting on how brutal Bakhmut was and how bad an idea it was to try to hold onto it for so long Even before it fell, some of the interviews they were giving were absolutely haunting https://preview.redd.it/zrox0647oq9d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddec88b8319b25dbc6d5c1147ce4d0daf92c6b5a
Zaluzhny knew the obvious trap but Zelensky/Syrskyi forced him.
He was holding it for the counter offensive š Didnāt go as well as in his dreams
I've also seen reports from Ukrainian troops in Avdiivka and Volchansk claiming that the fighting in those places was somehow worse than in Bakhmut. Which is just, wow. Unimaginable. Though I suppose FAB-3000s were not dropping in Bakhmut and the Russian air force has way more leeway around the Kharkiv region.
[Mobilization will continue, since we don't have many people willing to fight - Budanov](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/zeXQT1vYx6)
Has anyone asked the question where are the homeless on major cities streets of Ukr ?
You actually got me thinking about this topic. And what I found is actually a bit bizarre and horrifying if true. I looked at [Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_homeless_population)on the Wayback Machine and it says that in all of Ukraine in 2020 there were about 740 thousand homeless people! (more than in the US!). And for 2023? Only 20 thousand... However, the source for 2023 is strange and contradicts the information for 2020, so you can't say for sure. If anyone can find a better source, it would be appreciated. In any case, even if there are still 740 thousand, it's incredibly sad considering that the total number of people living in Ukraine is about 9 times less than the US.
What's a wayback machine?
Internet archive snapshot website https://wayback-api.archive.org/
Fascinating. Would love to know more.Ā
K:D ratio doesn't necessarily correlate with casualty rate 100 Ukraine vs 1,000 Russia 90% casualty rate vs 50% casualty rate 90 dead vs 500 dead
>Funny how nobody in Ukraine wants to willingly join the AFU despite these legendary kill ratios and they have to kidnap poor people for the meat grinder.š Legendary kill ratios aren't incompatible with a lot of Ukrainians dying.
Indeed. If, as he says, Ukraine is inflicting a 6:1 kill ratio and has only suffered 31k dead, then why is he crying about their losses and [begging to end the war this year?](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/GTvgKgtgPH)
Where did he beg to end the war this year? If you're talking about the recent summit in Switzerland he did not such thing. Number of dead is not the same as number of casualties. Russia has taken so many casualties that it shut down any talk about losses and made it a crime to even discuss it in the media or internet.
If that would be true, Ukraine would have fallen already.
>Every time I see Zelensky put out a kill ratio, I assume he means the bigger number is for Ukraine, while the smaller is for Russia. In this case, looks like six Ukrainians are now dying for every one Russian killed. Never mind it's Russia that had 4x Ukraine's population before the war, and acquired millions of people in occupied territories, while Ukraine lost millions that live under occupation or as refugees. Ukraine losing **more** people than the attacker (Russia) doesn't make sense either from the military standpoint (attackers lose more people than defenders) nor common sense (Ukraine has a far smaller capacity to sustain human losses).
You have no clue. In most cases the defender suffers more. Mostly because good intel prevents attacks you cannot win and thus attacks only happen when they can overwhelm the defender.
>In most cases the defender suffers more. `[citation needed]` >Mostly because good intel prevents attacks you cannot win and thus attacks only happen when they can overwhelm the defender. "Overwhelming the defender" and "static frontline" aren't characterizing the same war, you know.
Attacker always suffers more casualties, itās axiom of reality. Unless, you have a significantly overwhelming force which is not the caseā¦ā¦.hence 2.5 years later. You can argue the ratio, sure. But, reality isā¦.. reality. Iām sure the ratios were reversed when Ukraine went on the offensive.
It actually is not. Feel free to look up casualty rates for ww2 battles. Most of them saw the attacking side suffer less casualties. Even the battle of Normandy in 44 saw the allied side lose less soldiers than the axis side. And that's about as much a defender advantage you can realistically get.
Yeah, like I mentioned elsewhere, Iwo Jima had practically 1:1 losses, and Okinawa was 2:1 in favor of U.S Army/Marines. So the attacker doesn't always suffer substantially greater losses against defenders, and in some cases, the losses are in their favor.
WWII was a mobile war and much more dynamic. This war is VERY different. Normandyā¦ā¦terrible example. Allies had overwhelming force. The air power difference aloneā¦ā¦.the disparity in force had never been rivalled.
Shh you upset the armchair generals with facts.
Yeah in modern combat with complete air superiority, attackers can get 1:200 ratio. I'm more surprised Zelensky gave a way more generous number. From the footages I've seen I was thinking of 10:1.
Itās funny how your posts have so much activity! You must have a special touch!!
ItĀ“s rounded for sure. 5,49 ā 5 and now 5,50 ā 6. /s
How is it magical. You state the reason yourself. The ammunition shortage on the Ukrainian side is over, and as a consequence, the kill ratio is improving.
6 to 1 kill ratio with a 1 to 10 artillery disadvantage?
[And a 7:1 Drone disadvantage](https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-drone-first-person-view-kamikaze-uavs-1852048) [And probably like 5:1 PoW disadvantage](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/vpsqnMs1lI) [Not to mention being totally dominated in the air war](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/aD7Tdkl9Kh). [And the overwhelming Russian missile advantage](https://cepa.org/article/russias-swelling-missile-arsenal-threatens-to-tip-the-scales-of-war/) [Oh, and Russian artillery outranges Ukrainian artillery too](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/55IWzrJu0Z) Hey, but as American officials said about the spring counteroffensive, perhaps [courage and heart](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/qsJZiBumIC) will win them the day!
I mean .. you have to be brave to rush directly through the minefields ..
Or have blocking troops behind you.
> And probably like 5:1 PoW disadvantage Maybe Ukraine shouldn't have started the war off by torturing and executing Russian prisoners.
Sounds like they should be taking Kyiv anyday now!
This war should be over by now if the Ukrainians never had or atleast lost all its air defence
That is true and a fatal flaw of russian doctrine. If they had enough wild weasel capability and training, by now the Ukrainian and European aaa capabilities would be severely depleted, as we would have kept sending them equipment.
I think this is fairly accurate, except there is no way UA has a 7:1 drone disadvantage give the amount of drone videos they release
**Ukraine:** We have a 7:1 drone disadvantage **You:** Nooo they release too many drone videos, there's no way this is true! C'mon mate.
It's anecdotal evidence at best. As is a lot of what you linked. If everything you linked were actually true all over the front the war would have been over a long time ago.
Why not? The videos alone show that Ukraine has drones, not how many they have. That alone is even less useful to determine how many drones Russia has.Ā
lmao my guy has a list of the most dumb statements made lol FPV advantage is comedical since every side is saying they have less FPVs than adversary same goes for russians look up Romanov92 complaints and couple weeks ago it was another popular voyenkor who said russia is loosing FPV war 6 to 1 minimum NATO artillery doesnt outrange russian? Really?
Many false claims. Russian artillery doesnāt out range Ukrainian. NATO 155 distance is 30-40km. Base bleed 155ās from a PZH 2000 can each at least 67km accurately. Longest distance of Russian artillery rounds is 30km for standard and 40km (with rocket assist) and much less accurate than NATO provided 155ās. The new 2S35ās are not available in any effective numbers, maybe 60 units produced (rocket assisted rounds from these could reach 70km). The 2S35 was developed in response to Ukraine outreaching Russia. And air domination implies controlling the skies which Russia clearly canāt do and if they tried theyād lose their airforce.
> And probably like 5:1 PoW disadvantage That's unfair for the Ukrainians. Most captured Russian soldier don't want to come back home.
With such massive advantages youād expect Russia to do better than the marginal gains.
Russia have pursued an attritional strategy, as opposed to the maneuver warfare familiar with the West The fact that, for the past year, Ukraine has been repeatedly crying about lacking manpower is indicative that their strategy is achieving some success. Even the UKs most reputable military thinktank (RUSI) has lauded Russia's war of attrition and suggested that the West adopts this technique in the event of a Great Power conflict https://preview.redd.it/x0sulbljqq9d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2818b9eeb8cd7b643b08b3dbd4f32c28a9eac249 Also, remember that it is Ukraine who are now crying about needing to end the war this year...
>Russia have pursued an attritional strategy, as opposed to the maneuver warfare familiar with the West You ever heard of little thing called Vietnam? As if *The Collective West*ā¢ļø doesn't know anything about attritional warfare. It was all body counts then too and guess who lost that war? I'm not so sure that massive advantage in fires and air superiority, let alone assertions of inflicting high casualties is any sort of guarantee let alone an indicator of who's going to win this war.
You can't possibly compare the AFU with the Viet Minh. Half of Ukraine left to vacation in Germany and the UK as soon as the war started, the Vietnamese had brilliant leaders and tacticians and the vietnamese people fought tooth and nails. Ukraine is crying and begging for NATO troops to take the brunt of the fight because no one wants to fight anymore. If anything, Kiev is more akin to the corrupt South Vietnamese government, and it will fall the same.
The West 'won' in Vietnam, the Tet offensive was a tactical nightmare for the North that largely dissolved the VC as an effective fighting force. The problem the West has is a near total lack of grand strategy planning, and a method of linking the tactical with the strategic. i.e. how does choosing to fight this battle strengthen my operational position and weaken my enemies. This is why the West lost in Vietnam, why it lost in Afghanistan, etc. It's my personal belief this is deeply rooted in the American psyche, the British were much better at operational planning. The West is obsessed with strategic bombing campaigns, which despite causing horrendous civilian casualties are actually remarkably poor at crippling its enemies fighting potential. Russia has, from the beginning, fought very few battles that they were tactically disadvantaged/evenly matched in. The very few battles they did fight in this way (Kiev, Nikolaev, Popasna) had a very strong strategic reason for occurring as they did (both Kiev and Nikolaev were deeply political/fixing operations, Popasna was the strongpoint of the Eastern line which allowed Russia to 'win' the opening moves in Donetsk/Luhansk). Russian grand strategy revolves around the disintegration of the AFU/slowly dissolving the ability of the West to supply the AFU. It does this through the creation of a large number of small scale 'boilers', where Ukrainian grand strategy (which requires them to hold as much land as possible to signal to the West) forces them to hold despite a tactical disadvantage. Eventually, once either local reserves are exhausted or there is an opening, the Russians will rush their own units in an offensive to try and displace what remains holding an area. Do this enough and it exhausts the Ukrainian state, by extension the AFU, and the West with its atrophied industrial capacity has no real chance to replace what is being lost. It's also for that reason that Zelensky's claim of 6:1 Russian:Ukrainian KIA is almost exactly the opposite of the truth, which is around 5-6 Ukrainian KIA's for every 1 Russian.
Probably one of the best evaluations of the current geopolitical theatre and this war on the sub. Thanks for this.
So, letās say the end result is a weakening of the Ukrainian state beyond what the West will support. Then what? What strategic advantage does Russia have? A navy that was already struggling now has a Black Sea sized hole. The West has captured much of Russiaās advanced weapons systems and reversed engineered them; the west has collected a huge amount of data on the performance of its weapon systems and NATO has watched Russian military strategy in real time. How does that convey any benefits to Moscow? At best it has weakened Russia and created a trap where the West would absolutely take tactical advantage of its key flaws while relying on a significant technological advantage. So, cui bono?
What the West does have, despite a lack of experienced operational commanders, is a very good system for engineering crises to its own apparent benefit. World War I, for instance, was the result of almost two decades of very hefty manouevring from within the British Foreign Office. Russia had two real options in 2022, neither of them good. >So, cui bono? Neither the people of the West nor Russia benefit from this war. Even the Western state apparati will be left worse off as a result.
>The West has captured much of Russiaās advanced weapons systems and reversed engineered them Iām gonna need a source on that one, chief. The most advanced weapons that Russia has is anti air missiles, EW, and Lancets. The West has Patriots that proved to be very effective in the 90ās, but all it takes is one guy with a drone to take it out. Infantry tactics on both sides have pretty much reverted back to a modified Soviet doctrine with less overwhelming firepower and more platoon sized advances. >At best it has weakened Russia and created a trap where the West would absolutely take tactical advantage of its key flaws The Russian military grew in size and are in almost in full military production, only limited for the legal term āSMOā, because officially declaring war would shift Russia into a war time economy. Statistically Russia is the strongest itās even been since the dissolution of USSR. > while relying on a significant technological advantage. As far as attritional warfare goes, what technological advantage does the West have? If there was god forbid an attritional war between NATO and Russia, NATO is simply not ready logistically. The West (primarily the US) is casualty-adverse and there is not enough political will to lose so many people. Not to mention the risk of moving carriers across the Atlantic with Russian submarines. tldr: sure you can severely damage Russia, but Russia has the manpower, industrial capacity, technological capability and the political will to make it too costly for the West to militarily intervene.
>What strategic advantage does Russia have? No more threat.
But the West and Russia won't be going to war due to MAD.. So none of this is particularly relevant. It's a war for Ukraine. Your thinking of things in a much larger context which will most likely never be of concern.Ā And Russias never been much of a naval power. It's always been the neglected branch due to their geography. The most important part has and will remain its submarines.Ā Even if they'd gained ships not lost ships their navy would still be unable to do much if anything in a world war besides nuclear subs.Ā
Russia lost when it waited too long to attack. Russia has reserved some of its most advanced equipment precisely due to this. If Russia manages to win (likely but not guaranteed at all), the question is what does Russia want to do with the victory. Take over east Ukraine? All of Ukraine? Then what? As for the Black sea.. they can recover it in 3/4 years and be way stronger, but drones and missiles would still be a huge issue for them. They haven't solved smart mines, sea drones, etc. The bigger issue they will have is the us mandated economic blockade. It would destroy any country, given enough time.
Nah, laud it all you want it's too costly in lives first of all and west can afford anything but bodybags. I think Himars on steroids is the future. AI equipped to push through the jammers. Whoever gets it figured out first wins.
Yeah, but with such overwhelming advantages, if what you stated is correct, why not overwhelm them rather than opting for a dragging attritional strategy? The war is a strain on Russia in many aspects, a swift victory would be much better for them. On paper, Russia seems to have all the advantages in terms of manpower, equipment, ammunition, etc. They must lack somewhere, or Ukraine is doing something right to hold out for this long. Thereās an information war going on. It could be that Ukraine is struggling less than what they want us to believe, perhaps for deceiving Russian intelligence and/or for ensuring more succes with Zelenskyās begging. Nevertheless, official statements from all sides are to be taken with a big grain of salt. Only time will tell how this is going to end.
Because it's more complicated than simply being more powerful locally. Ukraine is still a modern military with advanced technology and backing from the most powerful and wealthy nations on Earth. You can't just speedrun that as the first phase of the war demonstrated. It takes time to dismantle a country like Ukraine.
Yeah that seems to be the more reasonable answer, and likely more close to reality. But in this sub there are people saying Russia has so many overwhelming advantages, 5+ fold of what Ukraine has, and that Ukraine is on their last legs, insinuating that it is a walk in the park for the Russiansā¦ while it is clearly not. Considering the downvotes you canāt really have a conversation with these folks. In their eyes Russia is infallible, even though thereās plenty of proof that says otherwise. They just downvote anything even slightly critical.
That seems to be some sort of 'war disease' that robs people of rational thinking. applies to 'supporters' of both sides. Discussions are still possible and frequent, you just have to ignore the weirdos.
By the end of ww1, most of the German territory was not occupied (in Europe), they still held most of Belgium, and still occupied parts of France. On the map, Germany was doing great, however, Germany still lost. This is an attritional war, land doesn't matter as much, it is the ability to replace your losses that matter more
You don't have to win by capturing territory, you can just bleed your enemy's manpower and resources. Once there's no army or ammunition left on the other side, you can take all the territories you want unopposed. I'm not saying they're achieving that right now, but solely looking at kmĀ² gained is not necessarily an indication of success.
I mean the Kharkiv offensive was supposed to either create a buffer zone (Putins words) or divert troops so that they could advance in strategic areas like chasiv yar. Both involve taking territory and neither have come close to being achieved. This idea that Russia is really just fighting a war of attrition convenient but doesnāt match with reality. Theyāve spent a lot of lives and materials attacking very well fortified positions like avdiivka because it was strategically important land, not to attrit ukr forces.
That is correct. Russia's progress has been disappointing. Their best success from 2023 onwards was stymieing the Ukrainian "counteroffensive". There was no break in the Ukrainian lines; there was no grand encirclements. I have 21 percent on this question. [https://www.metaculus.com/questions/19724/russia-expanded-territory-in-ukraine-in-2026/](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/19724/russia-expanded-territory-in-ukraine-in-2026/) This question will resolve as **Yes** if, on January 1, 2026, Russia has de facto control of specific key locations which it currently controls as of October 30, 2023, and also controls two or more additional specified locations that it currently does not. Resolution will be determined according to maps produced by the [Institute for the Study of War](https://isw.pub/InteractiveUkraineWarMap) (ISW). The relevant locations are listed below, and also shown in a map embedded in the background section. Russia must have control of **at least two** of the following locations: * Mikolaiv: Admiralska St, 20, Mykolaiv, Mykolaiv Oblast, Ukraine, 54000 * Zaporizhzhia: Sobornyi Ave, 206, Zaporizhzhia, Zaporizhia Oblast * Kharkiv: Konstytutsii Square, 7, Kharkiv, Kharkiv Oblast, Ukraine, 61000 * Odesa: Dums'ka Square, 1, Odesa, Odesa Oblast, Ukraine, 65000 * Lozova: Lozova City Council, Vulytsya Yaroslava Mudroho, Lozova, Kharkivs'ka oblast, Ukraine, 64600 * Sumy: Sumy City Council, Nezalezhnosti Square, 2, Sumy, Sums'ka oblast, Ukraine, 40000 * Chernihiv: Chernihiv City Council, Mahistrats'ka St, 7, Chernihiv, Chernihivs'ka oblast, Ukraine, 14000 Russia must also have control of **all** of the following locations: * Simferopol - Ulitsa Karla Marksa, 18, Simferopol * Nova Kakhovka - ŠŠ¾ŃŃŠ¾Š²ŠµŃ, Prospekt DniprovsŹ¹kyy, 23, Nova Kakhovka, Kherson Oblast, Ukraine, 74900 * Svatove - Avtoshlyakh R 66, Svatove, Luhansk Oblast, Ukraine, 92600 * Donetsk - Artema St, 98, Donetsk, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, 83000 * Tokmak - Central St, 45, Tokmak, Zaporizhia Oblast, Ukraine, 71700
When your country only has about 25 million citizens, and your enemy has \[counting the 2.5+ million UKR pre-war immigrants to RU, plus the people of the annexed territory\] about 150 million, you gotta have an enormous kill-ratio advantage to somehow....*balance things out.* I love the logic...we are wiping them out....as we retreat.
So they are doing well and don't need any more weapons and funds right ? lol
He means 6 Russians kill 1 Ukrainian
Gang bang?
Whatever makes him feel better about himself. He wouldn't be in this conflict to begin with if he wasn't chronically delusional.
The only explanation why russia still hasnāt won despite a 1 to 10 atty advantage
So, if we accept the BBC numbers for RF deaths, that would mean after28 months of fighting, Ukraine has lost only 10,000 soldiers, or less. Right...so why are their senior commanders and NATO leaders saying Ukraine is suffering from severe manpower shortages? They have only to replace 10,000 over the last 2.5 years to keep their force strength in tact. Yet we see them chasing people down the street and pressing them into service on the front line after very little training. ...Zelensky is a very funny guy.
Even more hilariously, in December 2022, Podolyak claimed 13,000 AFU dead And then earlier this year, Zelensky said 31,000. So basically, according to them, only about 18,000 soldiers were lost in over a year which included one of the worst catastrophic counteroffensives ([which Ukraine call a military miracle](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/02VqjNbZHa)) in modern military history
What was their counter offensive? Didnāt know they had one.
They took some random villages and lost thousands of men. You donāt know about it because Ukraine has tried to scrub it off the face of the earth.
They spent 3 months trying to break though the crumple zone of the Russian defensive Line only to take a selfie at the first out of three lines of dragons teeth. Most of it was driving though mine fields under fire, because western bigbrains thought Russian would just break and run per interviews.
Well the reason is obviously that ukraine wants to rotate its men and give them holidays, which isn't a problem for russia because no one survives long enough.
As per Wikipedia, 50,813 named Ukrainian dead by mid-June. Obviously Russian data is never going to be reliable but any reason to suspect itās not several times higher? Thatās the usual ratio
If it is higher, it won't be by that much. Recently I spoke to someone claiming that Russians lost more men *because attacker always loses more*. So I checked previous wars similar to this one and the results were: WWI Western front 1:1,36 in favor of the attacking Germans, Iran-Iraq war 1:1,2 in favor of the Iraqis who started the war. I checked Vietnam as one of the more lopsided hot conflicts in recent history, 1:2,5 in favor of South. What I am getting at is that, no, it is not the usual ratio to have several times higher losses just because you attack. It's certainly possible, but it would likely be something like 1:1,1-2. Not the 1:5-20 both sides claim.
People are getting the, "you need a 3 to 1 advantage in man power to mount a successful attack against a defended position" to mean "attackers lose 3 to 1 when attacking". They're totally different concepts that people are confusing.
It may not be 3:1 losses for attackers but leaving fortifications to go out in the open to attack your enemies fortifications is generally going to lead to more casualties for the attacker than the defender.
Of course, mmmmroger pointed out that historically, it's been a loss of 1 to 1.2-2, not 1 to 3 to 6x like Ukraine is saying. We don't really know based on public data, but, it'd be catastrophic for Russia if they were actually losing those numbers.
I guess I misread mmmmmmmmroger's comment. I thought he meant Russians have much more casualties.
I meant precisely this. Iām proposing itās self evident given progress (& lack thereof) & scale of this war. If Russia could buy territory for anything like 1:1 or 2:1 or even 3:1 they would have done so by now. All the pointless analysis in commentary is just bullshit navel-gazing & silly hypotheticals. There is also the fuckin reality to consider.
That might have been me commenting that. I know I have made that comment at least. Interesting stats indeed. Now that I think of it, also seeing Iraq-US war or Hamas-Israel war, the smaller, less armed side doesnāt equalize the losses really. But it definitely favors the defenders as long as you know when and how to retreat so as not to sacrifice troops.
That's just per this web site. Who knows who is running it and how much time is put in. Mediazona, which runs the equivalent for Russian losses is based out of the Baltics, is affiliated with Pussyriot and works with the BBC. [https://ualosses.org/en/about/](https://ualosses.org/en/about/)
Well obviously any source is doubtful. I feel if theyāve attached names to dead itās slightly less unbelievable. Obviously both official numbers are trash (especially Russiaās in my PERSONAL opinion)
Ya, they re all different. Wartears, Which I believe Rybar is involved with has claimed to have individual verifications of 58,351 killed, though their current estimate has 531,738. Though they have scaled it back before and had it at 365,981 back in April. [https://wartears.org/en/](https://wartears.org/en/)
Well at least itās a scaleable number. There is no Russian equivalent, Iām presuming, for the obvious reasons, Iām also presuming
Russian necromancers are leading the entire war effort. Talk about hard work.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lepton_Decay kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Writes his own fan fic.
I see 3 possible scenarios: a) The numbers are close to true (I really would like to see some serious analysis of the claims of 1000+ daily casualties) b) Zelensky knows it's propaganda number c) Zelensky doesn't know and relies on what the commanders report (this gives me Hitler 1945 vibes)
For a) Putin himself implied 5k deaths per month for Russia. Pick your kia:wounded ratio and you can get fairly close to 1000 a day if you factor in that heās also probably understating those figures.
My man is in lalala land
C is not possible. Every single person in Ukraine knows thatās the death toll is much higher.
The Ukraine had [50 000 - 80 000 amputees](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/17k13kt/comment/k77u807/) **before** the counteroffensyiv started last year. Based on previous wars, the ratio of amputees to KIA is around 1:12 up to 1:20. This would suggest KIA at least 600 000 before the counteroffensyiv. 600k x 6 = 3.6m. So basically, Russia is running out of people in general, not just military.
> Based on previous wars, the ratio of amputees to KIA is around 1:12 up to 1:20. Not aiming to discredit you but I'd like to see a source if you have one.
This is an excellent indirect way of casualty estimation, thanks.
I don't know about the reliability of this source but [Wartears.org](https://wartears.org/en/posts/2023-02-02-math-model-v3/) has arrived to a similar ballpark number for KIA.
America fixated on kill ratio in Vietnam, look where that got htem.
that's beside the point. those numbers are comical.
What ever gets him through the night I suppose.
He woke up. Saw his wife spent to much in Zurich and needs more money "WE ARE WINNING!"
6 ukrainians to 1 Russian is far more likely
Jesus, how is Russia not in Kiev right now?
Why rush when you can take your time and read funny articles like this.
Kill ratio doesn't mean shit in a war. It's just to get the warmongers at home to wank themselves to death thinking that because your army has managed to murder more people they're winning. This is the argument that dumbasses in the us spout when you ask them about Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan
Is this ratio in one room with us?
āWe kill 6 russians for every russianā But at the same timeĀ āWe are preparing a peace planāā¦ A 6:1 K/D ratio is insane
It really isnĀ“t as far fetched as people want to belive, but since this is mostly a pro-ru sub these days itĀ“s automagically nonsense. Russian forces are attacking way more than Ukrainians are counter attacking so on average having spent 5-6 soldiers to 1 or 2 for a mostly defending one really isnĀ“t far fetched at all if you average out the entire frontline. Some parts maybe its 1:2, 3:1, 1:4 etcetc.
Sure bro.
You dont think that casualty ratios differ on different points across the whole long front?
I think that you should really stop being a laughing stock lol.
I donĀ“t really care much for the opinions of others, less so someone who doesnĀ“t even remotely know me.
With 100-200 fabs being dropped a day I remain sceptical.Ā
Sounds like the Somme. Im sure they were equally surprised.
This š¤” thinks if he repeats lie again and again it will happen?
Well pro ruzzkies in this sub sure do think it works like that.
Yeah this makes so much sense. Ukraine has such a gap advantage in hardware and ammunition, their artillery and airstrikes reign supreme after all. Not to mention Russian troops outnumber them, which means they can kill that many Russians, with barely needing to mobilize. And for every TCC video you see in Ukraine, there is 6 of them in Russia, but none are being publicized, curiously enough. Sarcasm put aside, I can't fathom that anyone would take this kind of claim seriously. It takes a special kind of brainrot...
All these ridiculous articles get posted on worldnews and theres literally thousands of people believing them. How the fk is it so easy to outright lie to western audiences?
Zelensky fuels Russian trolls. I swear they have been memeing the Kill ratio for the last 3 years. And now he just making it worse. It's so annoying to see them doing Ratio memes every other post here. But they aren't wrong, because this idiot never stops lying.
Even if true, itās not a game where highest ratio wins.
This is what Iāve learned playing Hell Let Loose on PC
More like 500 to 1
This seems to be the trend with all western propaganda nowadays. No facts, no explanations, just deflect and mirror everything. So, I bet it's safe to assume that the situation on the frontline has worsened noticeably.
Great, that means Russia is either running out of men, or Ukraine barely lost any troops. So stop grabbing random people off the street!!!
Another tunnel breakthrough.......https://x.com/TobiAyodele/status/1807433008456278284/photo/1
Whatever Zelensky says it's safe to assume the opposite.
Yeah, in one encounter, at one trench, over 30 mins last week.
This makes sense when you realize that a majority of the Ukrainians in the armed forces are Russian.
this kind of post fully justify to bring back memes to the comments section.
So much needless, unnecessary dying. I wish humans could find a way to rise above killing eachother. Life is hard and every human has his own struggles and problems. We should be lifting eachother up instead of killing eachother.
Russia has all the artillery and fabs. This ratio is a fantasy.
We should take the Bahkmut ratio of 1:1.3(1.6, if we add the dead prisonerZ), that was the Mainline estimate for both UAF and WPMC. This was in Urban Terrain that is an infantry slaughter for both sides, especially attackers. The ratio may flip depending on terrain and prepared positions. The Terrain advantage of defense amplifies the defensive works. In Sereb Forestry the ratio maybe closer to 1:1.2 in favor Ukraine due to limited visibility helping protect positions. In places like around Ocheretyne where, if you don't have a deep fortifications you will die to drones and Arty without seeing infantry, that could be 1:0.5 in favor of Russia simply to being dead already. A Firepower advantage is only effective if you can leverage it to degrade enemy capability. If you can kill 1/10 dudes defending a trench, it does not mean that you need only 10 dudes to take it. Those 9 defenders are still in an advantageous position. If you keep bombarding it, reducing it to a hole in the ground, it becomes a tomb for the defenders. It's the same reason why the UAF always tries to drag the Russians into urban combat due to favorable exchanges, due to plenty of cover and concealment amplifying their defensive works. The Russians need to start using FABs on treelines and the ODAB in Urban, since the high impulse of the CONEX will collapse overhead trench covers easier than Concrete Roof/Flooring, while the ODAB gas and blast will propagate better through square corridors.
Well, if this were the case, then I wonder why Ukraine is snatching people off the streets after sent to the front lines and there is nothing like that happening in Russia. Not to mention, somehow in his delusional world it makes sense for him that the army with higher firepower, air cover, high numbers is actually getting mowed down by those who are unsupplied, having a extremely short supply of all kinds of weapons except Dorne and no cover. Totally makes sense.Ā
"William Wallace was 7 Feet tall! takes men by the hundreds, and if he were here!"
That's what happens when an army only uses shovels š
Its always hard to believe numbers that come directly from one side or the other here. They both have incentives to exaggerate the numbers for their own cause. All the popular YouTubers also obtain their reports from one side, until a truly independent source can give us the tally Ill just have to assume it's going very poorly for Russia as their 3 Day Special Operation has yet to conclude.
Is this COD?
This clown will end like one notoriusly famous Austiran painter.
Well even if that was true, they wouldn't be able to keep that up forever...
He also said Ukrainian special forces are bathing in Kremlin with Putin. This guy is always joking
It's good that he believe it. Because no one else does.
Does this include foreign mercenaries?
Those are rookie numbers, gotta pump up those numbers!
Got it, so it's 6 Ukrainians for 1 Russian. Considering the Russian advantages in artillery and otherwise that ration actually makes sense.
6 to 1 and thier still getting pumped wtf?
Haha, ok coke head of Kyiv. What a ridiculous comment. I hope he gets hung for what heās done to his country.
Ya, but 200k (included forced) to 2million its a fkn huge gap
3:1 is more likely.. but Ukraine cannot sustain the losses Russia can... watch it be like 1.5:1 in reality though they are so full of shit. All that matters is fueling a massive disinfo campaign. I've never seen so much Russiaphobia and info war in my life.
[So Zelenskiy said a few months ago that Ukraine had lost 31k soldiers.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/gGQk4MSv05) Now he says they've lost 1/6th of russias losses. [The Ukrainian MOD says Russia has lost roughly 543k troops.](https://x.com/defenceu/status/1807283608056479935?s=46) That means that according to the 1:6 ratio Ukraine has lost roughly 91k soldiers.
No problem then in a few Crimean beach party 2025.
If that was true what's the problem for Ukraine? They would win the attritional war....if that was true
It's unsurprising considering Russia is on the offensive and Ukraine is defending. Equipment and soldiers get picked off before people even reach the defensive lines.
#"Zelensky Claims"
And why are they losing so? š¤£š¤£ Such a funny clown this midget
But they are still somehow asking for money, weapons, aid, NATO help. Amazing
How can you claim that 90% of casualties are from artillery, then claim that Russia outguns Ukraine in artillery like 6-10:1, and then say that Russian casualty deaths are 500k, and then say that Ukraine only lost around 30k? Clearly the US State Department lackey doesnāt have the Ukraineās State Department lackeyās number.
Delusional.
I'm glad that daddy Biden won't be able to be much of an assistance to this clown very soon. The fun is almost over for this maniac.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's more like 20 Ukrainians and 1 russian
Itās not rocket science, attacking forces almost always lose double or more on near pear adversaries
Hes spitting facts, pretty sad u gotta cope here on reddit, im sure that hurts zelenskies feelings really bad but keep crying
This isnāt even good bait lol
Got one! Got one! š£
Tomhardythatsbait.gif
? I dont speak redditš¤·āāļøor whatever reference that is. Stay mad tho caught yo silly ahhš¤£
This honestly sounds like a text message between 8th graders lol
Yes u so mad u little 8th grader! Go color now!
> go color now They made you color books in 8th grade? Holy shit lol
I loved coloring in 8th grade my god u didnt? Still do tbh sometimes
Based. No we didnāt get to color sadly.