• Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s also the only source that publishes. Oryx documentation indicates direct photographic evidence for 50% of the numbers listed here and when you consider that most Russian losses are in areas not easily photographed by civilians this is a strong indicator these reports have some basis in reality. That said, I agree these numbers should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt.

  • derpo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m deleting this comment, what I thought was just an observation seemed to upset instead.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You mean where the US and it’s allies, with air superiority, carpet bombed the fuck out of civilian centres? Who’d have thought those school children and families cooking their supper wouldn’t put up much of a fight?

      How many people did the US lose in Vietnam or Korea? How many soldiers has it lost in Ukraine, even?

      • derpo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair enough. I didn’t think my comment would incense so many people. I just think it’s interesting how Americans think of war when they really have no concept of all-out war like is happening in Ukraine. That’s all I was trying to convey

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah, in that case, I apologise and we’re in agreement. I construed it as saying the opposite, that the US wins wars without many casualties (relatively speaking) because it’s superior rather than because it learned in Vietnam that it can’t win conventional wars and so now only targets places that can’t really fight back.

          I’m afraid that you may have walked into an in ongoing discussion as to whether the US military and NATO are forces for good or are particularly good at what they claim to do. People who dislike NATO and US imperialism can get a bit critical. You can’t win though, because now the USians who ‘have no [real] concept of all-out war’ will be around to get you from the other side. 😬

      • derpo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a great point. War is so stupid. I bet the collateral numbers from this war will also be depressing

        • bentruck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep, and as long as war is profitable for the US it will always be something the US is looking to engage in.

    • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe it is because the US invaded a third world country to steal their resources and destabilize it politically and economically in assimetrical warfare and here it a world power against NATO? 🤔

      • emzillain@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I absolutely LOVE how you’re shitting on Americam imperialism here, when Russia is doing the exact same thing you’re complaining about? You know, the whole invading Ukraine to steal their resources and destabilize it politically thing, or is it OK when the country is next door instead? 🙂

        Russia should continue to be glad they aren’t actually fighting NATO yet, they can hardly beat the Ukrainians as it is.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Out of curiosity, have you read any of the following authors’ works on imperialism, empire, or the development of capitalism? Hobson, Hilferding, Lenin, David Harvey, John Smith, Michael Hudson, Zac Cope, Anievas and Nisancioglu, Samir Amin? If not, what have you read? Maybe Giovanni Arrighi, Paul Kennedy, or Niall Ferguson? I’m not saying this as a rhetorical ‘gotcha’. I’m curious as to how you define imperialism.

          Russia should continue to be glad they aren’t actually fighting NATO yet, they can hardly beat the Ukrainians as it is.

          I have three questions.

          1. At what threshold of involvement can it be said that NATO is involved?
          2. What’s NATO’s excuse for Afghanistan or almost any of its other wars against third world countries? I use scare quotes here because while it usually fails to achieve it’s surface-level, publicly-stated aims, I don’t think it did ‘fail’ in it’s real goals. That is, it’s impossible to fail by participating in a war when the point of the war is merely to participate in war to make profits for the MIC.
          3. If Russia’s stated aims are demilitarisation and denazification, what does ‘beating Ukraine’ look like? I.e. are you judging Russia’s success or failure according to metrics in which it has no interest?
          • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            – Russia shouldn’t invade other countries and kill people there actually
            – Yeah, but what about that other time other countries killed people? Also, had you read Lenin? Lenin has something to do with this actually, also here’s a bunch of names. As you can see, that means Russia should invade other countries and kill people actually

            • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I agree, this war is terrible. I wish it could be stopped today. I wish it didn’t happen. Yet it has happened and is ongoing. It won’t stop, and we can’t hasten that end, without a rigorous analysis and understanding of what’s actually going on.

              Yes, I have read Lenin. Well, I’ve read a lot of Lenin. Not everything. What do you think he has to do with this war? You know he’s been dead for a long time, right?

              That bunch of names represents the state of the art in imperialism studies, give or take a few others. I’m listing then because I’m curious about what people have read. It’s no use me going off on one about this or that theory if the people I’m talking to haven’t read the theory.

              Also, you should know, that those writers aren’t all in agreement. Hobson, Ferguson, and perhaps Cope and Harvey, for example, would likely be critical of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Like I said, I didn’t list them as a rhetorical ‘gotcha’; that part of my comment means it cannot be read as something like a trump card to close down the discussion. It’s meant to open up the discussion.

              I take it that you haven’t read any of them and considering your position, I suggest starting with Ferguson and Hobson.