Ukraine @sopuli.xyz wildflower @lemmy.world 2d ago

The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to 13.03.25

Загальні бойові втрати противника з 24.02.22 по 13.03.25 (орієнтовно)

#NOMERCY #stoprussia

| Підписатися ГШ ЗСУ |

t.me/GeneralStaffZSU/21939

You're viewing a single thread.

15 comments

Is there any way to know how many total military personnel russia still has alive? 890k is a fuckload of death. Yes, it's true previous wars have killed more russians than this one so far.....but that doesn't mean 890k isn't at the point where you wonder "but, who's left? How are they still fighting?"
- I don't think "casualties" means just death. Wounds are also considered under casualties. I've read varying numbers of death, but it seems to be somewhere around 120.000-150.000. Which is still a staggering number, especially in the short amount of time. Whatever else happens, Russia is pretty well demographically fucked for a while. Unfortunately Ukraine is probably too 😒
  
  So, theoretically someone could get shot, not die, raise the count by one. Then heal, go back on the feont lines and get shot again, still not die, but now he's raised the count by 1 again, meaning total he raised the count twice.
  
  Yes. Casualties are soldiers who either die in battle or get wounded badly enough to be taken out of action for a longer time.
  
  Yeah, I think so.
- They are generally accepted to have recruited around 1000/day for all of 2024. However they have seen an uptick in recruiting in February as recruits bet that the war will be over (because of Trump's actions) before they are sent to front lines and thus they can collect the signing bonus without risking their life.
- Russia is recruiting. The bigger question is when will Russia run out of men, being willing to die in Ukraine. In 2024 Russia had 29.5million men between 20-50. That is Russian statistics, so who knows how good they are, but it is probably safe to presume that running out of men is not going to be the problem. More like running out of men willing to die and that is hard to say.
  
  For a land the size of russia, 29 million seems really low.
  
  Just for comparison, depending on the year Ohio has between 9-11 million people. Now look at Ohio's size, and now look at russia. Granted I know ohios number is total population, and the 29 mil is just healthy men aged 20-50, but still. Most people from europe don't comprehend the size of the usa. They think they'll land at disney in orlando, and then just drive to NYC is a couple hours. By that same token most americans don't comprehend the size of russia. It has something like 14 timezones. USA has 4, but you gotta remember one of those is just Hawaii. Now imagine 14. And you're telling me they only have 29 mil army ready men? Really feel like based on country size I would have expected 200mil. India is like the size of texas (which to be fair is huge on its own), but they have 2 BILLION people. There is no such thing as privacy there. Everybody watches you poop.
  
  Here is a map showing where the majority of Russia's population lives:
  
  https://maps-russia.com/maps-russia-geography/russia-population-density-map
  
  The largest part of Russia is the vast Siberia, which is basically just endless forests, mountains and arctic tundra with few cities here and there - and the winters can be extreme. If not for the rich resources and the jobs that extraction of those resources creates, not many would choose to live there.
  
  Russias population is about 145million, but more then half are women and a lot of the men do not fit in the age bracket. For the US the male population between 20-50 is only roughly double that.
  
  Also India is a 1.4billion and six times the size of Texas in area. Oh and at least the Europeans understand enough about the US, to not presume they can just take the train.
  
  By your logic, Canada has twice the population of the US. This is obviously not the case.
  
  Land area has little to do with population as you yourself eloquently show with the examples in your statement. The area's culture, history, and environment are all more relevant factors for demographics. The USSR's population was the hardest hit by WWII and their population 'catch up' hindered by frequent famines.
  
  1947–1991
  
  After 1947 there were no known famines. The drought of 1963 caused panic slaughtering of livestock, but there was no risk of famine. After that year the Soviet Union started importing feed grains for its livestock in increasing amounts.[50]
  
  They lost a ton of population when the USSR broke up, and population growth wasn't that high for Russians since the war due to general nihilism.
  
  Yeah 'food shortage not rising to full blown famine' would probably be more accurate. There have been several severe droughts in the USSR/Russia since WWII that impacted food availability.
  
  This chart shows the age distribution:
  
  The age distribution chart of Russia is fascinating in that you can still see (what I have heard is) the aftermath of an entire generation being decimated in WWII in the form of these population "dips" every 20-30 years.
  
  The only way I can interpret this is that you seem to think that land area somehow equates to population. So I'm curious as to how Russia should have 200 million soldiers. After they draft their entire population where are they getting the extra 50 million-ish people?

15 comments