History Learner
Well-known member
The position that the 100k estimate has practically no bearing on military casualties?
In your head, sure. In reality, no, and that's why you're too much of a coward to answer the questions I posed in response. If the 100,000 figure is mostly civilians, as you attest, you have to explain where the lack of evidence (bodies, sat photos, etc) are and why the Ukrainian Defense Minister refused to clarify the amount. If it's mostly civilians, that would be an obvious propaganda coup and if it's an accurate statement, evidence would be available to prove it. Why isn't that the case here?
Yet, we do have plenty of evidence to show large numbers of non-officially admitted casualties.
What, that the 100k estimate is mostly civilians?
Solely in your brain, sure. Would you like to try again?
If you did some math instead of juggling rhetoric like a clown you would spare yourself a lot of typing.
Which I've done several times in this thread, again, would you like to try to make an actual argument?
In early June, Ukraine claimed their official losses were 10,000 KIA and 30,000 WIA; we have no breakdown on sanitary fatalities among the WIA, and obviously Ukraine has every reason to downplay their own losses. Senior officials have stated their casualties have gone up to 500 KIA a day in Donbass alone around the middle of June, so that means on that sector of the front alone that's another 10,000 KIA and another 40,000 WIA presuming that rate of casualties has held; it's been on an upward trend since June, so I see no reason to doubt such and it's possible it's even higher now so I'm being conservative here. That's 20,000 KIA and 70,000 WIA right there, not counting other sectors since early June and assuming the Ukies were being truthful in early June.
Starts to make you realize how accurate my position is, doesn't?
That's why the 100k you quoted is an estimate too, not data, poindexter.
Indeed, which makes it so odd you make definitive statements about said data with no evidence. I can provide citations and reasoning to explain my position, you're solely consists of just claiming it and misrepresenting that which I was literally the one to quote.