Quote (kusotarre1 @ Nov 9 2022 01:17pm)
That's not the issue, the issue is that Russia outfires Ukrainian artillery by an enormous margin, withdraws every time they face difficulty and that results in a much higher rate of loss for the AFU.
BBC will try to debunk Russian numbers and fail, but someone working there has consciously decided trying to do the same in Ukraine would 'help Putin' or whatever.
Yep, but the threat calculus leans towards Russia. If Russian assets start getting hit, the outcome is annihilation at the hands of a Western backed army of Nazis or eventually being put into a situation where fission becomes an enticing process. If American UAVs and satellites get destroyed, the outcome is that some people they don't give a shit about have a harder time taking a place they don't give a shit about.
Sure they do. Yesterday, Russia fired about 20,000 to Ukraine's 7,000 rounds. But artillery aren't the only weapons, and to take ground, you must expose troops to fire to cover that ground. Russia has been hurling human waves at the Bakhmut front, hurled huge numbers of troops at Sievierodonetsk, and lost large numbers in the early stages in mad dashes for land grabs. Tell me how it is that Russian soldiers, who enjoy a significant advantage in artillery, consistently refuse to join attacks on Ukrainian lines, if artillery is deciding the war. Well, I'm here to help! There's all the difference in the world between lobbing shells at troops hunkered down in bunkers, and lobbing shells at above-ground attack formations.
Are more Ukrainians likely being killed in the war overall? I think so. At a 5-1 ratio (your last assessment was 10-1)? Unlikely.