It’s hard to say, that it’s prooved. Probably even the US Ministry of Defence has no totaly exact lists.
But there are good estimations based on reports and leaked footage.
For example oryx has a list with destroyed vehicles and equipment based on photographic or videographic evidence. The real numbers are probably significantly higher.
After this list the russian army lost more than 2000 tanks. Ukrainian sources says that the Invasion started with more than 3000 tanks.
Ca. 1000 of the 2000 lost tanks were T-72 (the most common tank in the russian army). According to estimations russia has 2000 T-72 in active service and maybe 10.000 or more as reserves. The reserves are mostly remnants of the soviet Union and old models that are never modernized. Satellite pictures show that a big part of this reserves are stored in open depots with no weather protection. Maybe russia could make some of this vehicles usable, it will cost Billions to repair and modernize them.
So, no there is no proof, that the ukrainian army destroyed 50% of the russian forces. But there are proofs that russia lost a significant part of its active forces (probably something close to this claim) and that they definitly lost much more value than the americans, the europeans, ect. invested in the ukrainian army.
wikipedia napkin math. with1.15 million andat least two million reserve personnel.
~3.15 million personelle. ukraine hasnt killed that many; probably around 300k. their probably talking about the number of troops in ukraine. which is probably around 700k for the duration of the war. if you count just the 1.15mil is probably close to it now.
I don’t think the point here is that the US 5% contribution has single handedly led to Russia losing 50%. The point is that the coalition as a whole are each spending relatively little compared to what the total cost to the Russians is. Ukraine is of course also paying a much heavier price than any of its western supporters who help it keep fighting.
You and I already agree with the sentiment of this message and interpret this claim charitably, which the intended recipients of this message (US Republicans) will mostly not do. This message needs to convince them, not us, and it would be a far stronger argument if it cited a source.
There’s enormous amounts of anti-russian comments and Russia phobia on the English speaking parts of the internet to where unbiased information is extremely hard to find.
You should check out “red effect” on YouTube. He’s the closest thing I’ve found to being unbiased
Lmfao yeah get your advice from the worst fucking video platform out there, who’s notoriously had issues with fake news and conspiracy theory nutjobs.
Also please go look up what it means to be biased
Maybe then you’ll understand why being unbiased against a global threat is fundamentally impossible. You will always have a bias, the difference is being objective and following good media practices like using several, diversified resources that have minimal bias and thus provides a more comprehensive picture.
It’s similar to AI training, you want to retain the orthogonal items that are unique to preserve the best image
There’s no such thing as unbiased. At best you’ll get considerate analysis. Even publications renowned for their lack of bias (Reuters for example) will have some bias in favour of things like free speech and freedom of the press, because ofc they do. That said, proper sources should both be professional, ethcial journalists and strive to be unbiased as much as possible.
Also, FTR just because an article is critical of russia doesn’t mean it is biased. Information can be objectively bad. News that informs about say a mass murder spree is not (necessarily) pro-murder and there is very little one can objectively say is Good about russia unless you get into the realm of arguments like ‘Tyrants are better than anarchy’.
You have no idea who I am or what my views are. You probably romanticise with the idea I’m a russia sympathiser but I hope vladdy the baddy is killed and also the war ends immediately. I’m just one of those people who can see the western bias for what it is, the circle jerk is cringe on both sides
Nobody answered me. Is there PROOF of the 50% claim here?
How can I view non-biased information about the war?
It’s hard to say, that it’s prooved. Probably even the US Ministry of Defence has no totaly exact lists.
But there are good estimations based on reports and leaked footage.
For example oryx has a list with destroyed vehicles and equipment based on photographic or videographic evidence. The real numbers are probably significantly higher.
After this list the russian army lost more than 2000 tanks. Ukrainian sources says that the Invasion started with more than 3000 tanks.
Ca. 1000 of the 2000 lost tanks were T-72 (the most common tank in the russian army). According to estimations russia has 2000 T-72 in active service and maybe 10.000 or more as reserves. The reserves are mostly remnants of the soviet Union and old models that are never modernized. Satellite pictures show that a big part of this reserves are stored in open depots with no weather protection. Maybe russia could make some of this vehicles usable, it will cost Billions to repair and modernize them.
So, no there is no proof, that the ukrainian army destroyed 50% of the russian forces. But there are proofs that russia lost a significant part of its active forces (probably something close to this claim) and that they definitly lost much more value than the americans, the europeans, ect. invested in the ukrainian army.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/tanks-russia-how-many-putin-military-ukraine-leopard-2-abrams-2108097
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72
wikipedia napkin math.
with 1.15 million and at least two million reserve personnel.~3.15 million personelle. ukraine hasnt killed that many; probably around 300k. their probably talking about the number of troops in ukraine. which is probably around 700k for the duration of the war. if you count just the 1.15mil is probably close to it now.
No proof, just rambles.
deleted by creator
50% is absolutely outrageous, I mean it’s clearly war propaganda they could have said 200% who cares.
Removed by mod
5% of the defense budget. Which is definitely worth it even for a 10% decrease, since the US usually has to spend more than its adversaries.
And Russian casualties are generally estimated to be in the range of 100K to 300K, which is more than 10%.
For comparison, there were about 50K Taliban KIA in Afghanistan, and the US spent a lot more money there.
I don’t think the point here is that the US 5% contribution has single handedly led to Russia losing 50%. The point is that the coalition as a whole are each spending relatively little compared to what the total cost to the Russians is. Ukraine is of course also paying a much heavier price than any of its western supporters who help it keep fighting.
@Zuberi @Mouette
@ukraine
You and I already agree with the sentiment of this message and interpret this claim charitably, which the intended recipients of this message (US Republicans) will mostly not do. This message needs to convince them, not us, and it would be a far stronger argument if it cited a source.
deleted by creator
*The few upvotes are from Hexbear!
There’s enormous amounts of anti-russian comments and Russia phobia on the English speaking parts of the internet to where unbiased information is extremely hard to find.
You should check out “red effect” on YouTube. He’s the closest thing I’ve found to being unbiased
EDIT: found OPs source lol https://vid.pr0gramm.com/2023/09/25/187e9f46663d04ee.mp4
Of course, YouTube, the ultimate source of unbiased and reliable information.
Those are your words not mine…
Did you know the video sharing website has users who are capable of stating external sources within the video and description?
Cite those sources then.
Lmao
Lmfao yeah get your advice from the worst fucking video platform out there, who’s notoriously had issues with fake news and conspiracy theory nutjobs.
Also please go look up what it means to be biased
Maybe then you’ll understand why being unbiased against a global threat is fundamentally impossible. You will always have a bias, the difference is being objective and following good media practices like using several, diversified resources that have minimal bias and thus provides a more comprehensive picture.
It’s similar to AI training, you want to retain the orthogonal items that are unique to preserve the best image
When you see “russophobia” are you really seeing disapproval of a dictatorship?
There’s no such thing as unbiased. At best you’ll get considerate analysis. Even publications renowned for their lack of bias (Reuters for example) will have some bias in favour of things like free speech and freedom of the press, because ofc they do. That said, proper sources should both be professional, ethcial journalists and strive to be unbiased as much as possible. Also, FTR just because an article is critical of russia doesn’t mean it is biased. Information can be objectively bad. News that informs about say a mass murder spree is not (necessarily) pro-murder and there is very little one can objectively say is Good about russia unless you get into the realm of arguments like ‘Tyrants are better than anarchy’.
Do you know what happened to unbiased journalists in Russia? They go to jail. They do not exist in Russia.
Or the closest thing you’ve found to your own bias?
You have no idea who I am or what my views are. You probably romanticise with the idea I’m a russia sympathiser but I hope vladdy the baddy is killed and also the war ends immediately. I’m just one of those people who can see the western bias for what it is, the circle jerk is cringe on both sides