It seems that you fundamentally choose analysts who give the lowest death rates for terrorists who attacked Ukraine, this is bad - you still can’t get away from reality
For example, British intelligence says that now, after the Armed Forces of Ukraine have received a lot of new weapons over the past 2 months, the death rate of rashists is up to 500 carcasses daily ... Plus, you can’t imagine how many corpses of terrorists are lying around the fields and forests where they are "for 2 weeks took all of Ukraine"
Plus, after a successful Jevelin or NLAV in an armored personnel carrier / BRDM / TANK, there is essentially nothing left of the crew. I personally saw an armored personnel carrier and a tank after such a hit - there are fragments of charred flesh and nothing more. Well, the most important thing is propaganda and cowardice of the Russian government! It's cowardly to hide your losses - it's just a national trait of the Russians! And it goes without saying to attribute the fabulous successes of your "second army of the world", the truth of the third world
So - self-deception can give a little positive, but it does not cease to be a deception
The Ukrainian sources have stated recently that they are outnumbered and outgunned in the Donbass region. A few days back, I was watching an interview with an Ukrainian commander, who was saying that Russians fire 50,000 to 60,000 artillery pieces per day, while the Ukrainians can fire only around 5,000 per day. Given the fact that most of the deaths in this war has resulted from shelling, I don't think that it will be logical to assume that Russians suffered more casualties despite firing 10x shells. Western weapons maybe more accurate, but still that won't cover the 10x numerical advantage.
Also, most of the casualties on the Ukrainian side consists of Ukrainian citizens (up to 5% maybe from foreign volunteers). On the other hand, at least half of the Russian casualties are from non-citizens of Russia (mostly rebels from DPR/LPR).
Kindly - a link to the original of this resource, and we will all figure it out together here what was meant there, how did you understand it, and what really?
You have a comfortable position. If the truth does not fit, it is enough to state that "a certain resource said" and add whatever your heart desires!
I'll tell you - many media in Russia, including some generals of the headquarters of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, officially confirmed that more than 120,000 Russian Nazis were killed, all Russian aviation was destroyed, well, a couple of planes remained, and Putin, out of habit, pissed himself in his bunker, out of fear. This is true ! Or how ? Or is this "not the case"?
Let's do it this way - there is no link to the source - it means it's a lie! In my honest and fair. It’s a pity only supporters of rashist propaganda are guaranteed to refuse
))
So:
1. Link to Ukrainian RESOURCE. Where is the verified information. Otherwise, to your nickname, through a hyphen, add the prefix "unpretentious liar"
2. A link to some "some resource" is considered a deliberate lie in advance?
