this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
149 points (98.1% liked)
Ukraine
8386 readers
507 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
β Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I generally agree, but the devil is in the details. An order of magnitude more casualties would be approximately the entire Russian army and its reservists. It's currently thought that an army loses operational efficacy at 30-40% losses.
Assuming the Russian army had any operational efficiency to begin with.
Looking at WW2 numbers, they still have some way to go and I suppose you don't need to worry too much about defending other borders, as long as you giver a finger over the nuclear suicide button.
Why should we suppose that the current Russian military is as resilient as the Soviet one was?
Come to that, why should we suppose even their nukes are in similar condition?
It's been decades of essentially government by organized crime and kleptocracy in Russia. Their shit is wack, in the parlance.