(i.e. when it comes to casualties and many other things)
Obviously this is just kinda coming out of my ass, but I'm almost certain that 100,000 people have already died. Can't say what the exact number is obviously, but I imagine it's the kind of thing that the lib media would rather not release because it would dampen people's enthusiasm for it
There do seem to be more and more Western sources that are at least acknowledging the massive death toll on the Ukranian side, and some talking heads are gently floating the idea of negotiations.
And Russia has likely suffered similar casualties.
I don’t actually see why this would be the case.
The only phase where it seems likely to me that Russia suffered significantly heavier losses than Ukraine was during the push / feint (depending on who you listen to) against Kyiv. The “big arrow” move that then hastily withdrew after taking a beating.
Aside from that episode, it has mostly been an artillery duel where Russia has had a 5:1 to 10:1 advantage in terms of artillery and shells.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Russian losses were almost an entire order of magnitude less than Ukraine given they had up to an order of magnitude more artillery in an artillery duel, and given Ukraine has almost no air power, and given the apparent Russian advantage in kamikaze drones as well.
I’d be surprised if Russian losses were more than half that of Ukraine, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were only 20%, let me put it that way. Lukashenko (obviously biased towards Russia) said losses were 8:1 which is roughly an order of magnitude less, so that would be the lower limit.
The only phase where it seems likely to me that Russia suffered significantly heavier losses than Ukraine was during the push / feint (depending on who you listen to) against Kyiv. The “big arrow” move that then hastily withdrew after taking a beating.
Yeah I think this as well. It seems like they underestimated the defenses of Kiev, although others have suggested that it was always a distraction to take divert Ukranian troops away from the east. Whatever the reason, it seems to me like now the Russians are barely dying and the Ukranians are getting stomped.
others have suggested that it was always a distraction to take divert Ukranian troops away from the east
From what I've read this is the most likely scenario, probably combined with an opportunistic "well sure we'll take the capitol if it's easy/the government collapses."
Putin was trying to force a compromise/negotiation. He was trying to cause panic and disarray in Ukraine so they would be forced to negotiate. It would have worked too if not for UK/US jumping in immediately to control negotiations and supply mercenaries and weaponry
I think it was a calculated risk, but it was “very high risk, very high reward”, ie it was almost certainly going to fail but if it did succeed then they would have won the war in week 2 instead of year 5 therefore, despite the high probability of failure, the risk-reward calculus still made it worthwhile.
And then given the high probability of failure, the campaign doubled as a feint to draw forces away from the main thrust in the south.
The idea it must be either a failed offensive or a feint is a bit false. It could also be a high risk gambit that in the expected event of failure became a planned feint.
Why would Russia suffer similar casualties when they have been defending for over a year, have vast artillery advantages and vast drone and airpower advantages? Ukraine lost probably 25,000 people in its counter-offensive just to mines since it started. There's no way the ratio is even somewhat close, which is why Russia isn't doing additional rounds of mobilization and is drawing this out - they understand they win the attrition war
Overall, the analysis suggests that up to 188,000 Ukrainian soldiers and civilians may have died in the war – though this figure is likely to be an overestimate, since people who died of Covid likely had fewer friends than those who’ve died in the war
The fuck? How does that assumption track at ALL? Lmfao
Also it isn't like people don't die more often from disease during war. So secondary deaths like that are not even counted here. It's just "How many people do you know that died in the war"(at least in the english translation"
But he posts the metodology and it seems ok. There is always some error. And we can never be sure in these cases but 190k seem more resonable than the 70k nato is claiming.
The methodology is completely pulled out of his ass.
There's a lot wrong with it but the main thing is using linear regression for "do you know someone who has died of X?" This is cannot be a linear relationship. As the number of casualties goes up, the % of people who know a casualty logarithmically approaches 100%.
This means the % of people who know a casualty will rise dramatically at first, and taper off. It also means it's not a good indicator for actual deaths.
Disregard my previous post. You are completly rigth. I apologise for psting it. I just found an estimate that seemed plausible and had an explanation without cheking it properly. I have now read the rest of that guys posts and i realize i look like a cretin promoting him.
Thats a hood point. I did not think of that. Sorry. I guess there arent enough datapoints for a logarithmic regresion.
The question is if at 60% there is enough deviation from the linear function?
As more people die. Intervewed people would know more than 1 victim leading to undercounting. Is this efect enough to counteract the logarithmic trend?
Obviously this is just kinda coming out of my ass, but I'm almost certain that 100,000 people have already died. Can't say what the exact number is obviously, but I imagine it's the kind of thing that the lib media would rather not release because it would dampen people's enthusiasm for it
The US is estimating at least 70,000 Ukranian battlefield deaths. And Russia has likely suffered similar casualties.
There do seem to be more and more Western sources that are at least acknowledging the massive death toll on the Ukranian side, and some talking heads are gently floating the idea of negotiations.
I don’t actually see why this would be the case.
The only phase where it seems likely to me that Russia suffered significantly heavier losses than Ukraine was during the push / feint (depending on who you listen to) against Kyiv. The “big arrow” move that then hastily withdrew after taking a beating.
Aside from that episode, it has mostly been an artillery duel where Russia has had a 5:1 to 10:1 advantage in terms of artillery and shells.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Russian losses were almost an entire order of magnitude less than Ukraine given they had up to an order of magnitude more artillery in an artillery duel, and given Ukraine has almost no air power, and given the apparent Russian advantage in kamikaze drones as well.
I’d be surprised if Russian losses were more than half that of Ukraine, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were only 20%, let me put it that way. Lukashenko (obviously biased towards Russia) said losses were 8:1 which is roughly an order of magnitude less, so that would be the lower limit.
Yeah I think this as well. It seems like they underestimated the defenses of Kiev, although others have suggested that it was always a distraction to take divert Ukranian troops away from the east. Whatever the reason, it seems to me like now the Russians are barely dying and the Ukranians are getting stomped.
From what I've read this is the most likely scenario, probably combined with an opportunistic "well sure we'll take the capitol if it's easy/the government collapses."
Putin was trying to force a compromise/negotiation. He was trying to cause panic and disarray in Ukraine so they would be forced to negotiate. It would have worked too if not for UK/US jumping in immediately to control negotiations and supply mercenaries and weaponry
I think it was a calculated risk, but it was “very high risk, very high reward”, ie it was almost certainly going to fail but if it did succeed then they would have won the war in week 2 instead of year 5 therefore, despite the high probability of failure, the risk-reward calculus still made it worthwhile.
And then given the high probability of failure, the campaign doubled as a feint to draw forces away from the main thrust in the south.
The idea it must be either a failed offensive or a feint is a bit false. It could also be a high risk gambit that in the expected event of failure became a planned feint.
Why would Russia suffer similar casualties when they have been defending for over a year, have vast artillery advantages and vast drone and airpower advantages? Ukraine lost probably 25,000 people in its counter-offensive just to mines since it started. There's no way the ratio is even somewhat close, which is why Russia isn't doing additional rounds of mobilization and is drawing this out - they understand they win the attrition war
Here is an estimate for ukraine. https://www.noahsnewsletter.com/p/how-many-people-have-died-in-ukraine
Russia should be 1:4 or 1:5 based on artillery ratios.
The fuck? How does that assumption track at ALL? Lmfao
You died of covid? Probably a friendless loser
Also it isn't like people don't die more often from disease during war. So secondary deaths like that are not even counted here. It's just "How many people do you know that died in the war"(at least in the english translation"
It asumes people that died of covid are older. So their friends are more likley to be already dead or also died of covid.
Author self identifies as a "moderate conservative". Bad source.
But he posts the metodology and it seems ok. There is always some error. And we can never be sure in these cases but 190k seem more resonable than the 70k nato is claiming.
The methodology is completely pulled out of his ass.
There's a lot wrong with it but the main thing is using linear regression for "do you know someone who has died of X?" This is cannot be a linear relationship. As the number of casualties goes up, the % of people who know a casualty logarithmically approaches 100%.
This means the % of people who know a casualty will rise dramatically at first, and taper off. It also means it's not a good indicator for actual deaths.
Disregard my previous post. You are completly rigth. I apologise for psting it. I just found an estimate that seemed plausible and had an explanation without cheking it properly. I have now read the rest of that guys posts and i realize i look like a cretin promoting him.
No need to apologize. Just remember to meet independent media with the same level of skepticism as main stream media.
Thats a hood point. I did not think of that. Sorry. I guess there arent enough datapoints for a logarithmic regresion.
The question is if at 60% there is enough deviation from the linear function? As more people die. Intervewed people would know more than 1 victim leading to undercounting. Is this efect enough to counteract the logarithmic trend?
Why is that relevant to counting bodies?
If you mean russians and ukraine casualties combined then Thats basicaly certain.