jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
This is simply dumb.Her claims of Russian casualties are not reliable because she doesn't have access to them and she is also part of the countries waging war on Russia. So anything that Ursula Von Der Leyen states about Russian casualties is a pure propaganda, and we should take a grain of salt with any of her claims with respect to Russian casualties.
With respect to Ukrainian casualties, the EU that she is the president is the main backer of Ukraine, US being the other one. Therefore, she has full access to Ukrainian casualties. So when she admitted 100,000 Ukrainian military officers' casualties, that should tell you she is referring to the data that she has access to.
It is also very possible that she is downplaying the Ukrainian casualties because she doesn't want to say anything that Russians can use as a propaganda. So she is most likely hiding the real casualties - meaning the real death and wounded of Ukrainians must be way above 500,000. And this is the reason why the Ukrainians are in their 6th or 7th mobilization phase.
Let us not forget the Ukrainians have increased the age of military service to 60 years of age. And one should ask himself (or herself) why would they need men who are 60 years of age. The only explanation is the attrition rate must be very high.
So Mr @jhungary, you and others can believe in your fairy tales, but as we've seen, the truth has strange way of revealing itself.
Ukraine won't tell anyone, be it EU or US or even their own government, how many people they lost, again, I still have Top Secret Clearence from the work I have done with the department of defence, and for all the intelligence cable I saw, not one of them are claimed to have actual figure on how many people Ukraine has lost.
All of those figures are estimated by the same source, for her is the OSCE intelligence, for us, it's the CIA. Which mean both figures would have come from the same source, so it would have to be really stupid for you to nikpick one because it convivence you than the other. That's why I keep saying estimation from BOTH side is merely a fart, you try to have the other guy smell bad.
On the other hand, it's not hard to even imagine Russia has lost more than just a few thousand troop they have said, the lack of progress + the mobilisation of 300,000 and now maybe more troop, you don't need to know the actual figure to know they lost enough troop they can't replace it at a normal rate, and if they can't do that, that mean that figure is significant.
But then who am I talking to? You can go believe Russia only lost 5000 troop, I have no problem with that because that mean nothing, progress on the field is the one that was charted, the number of loss troop may help with romanticize the war when you are shooting a movie over that in 10 years' time, but right now? Who is making a push is more important than who is losing more troop on the ground.