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.
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.