Your tweet that Ukraine lost ten thousand dead in three weeks is based on a single data point from an Journalist you've already stated is unreliable yet you'll cherry pick him now because he agrees with your estimates, which are based these statements which you state is "official admitted Ukrainian losses."
In reality, it was part of a series of data points as I said, it's why you have to keep leaving out portions of my reply and rearranging it because to do otherwise shows exactly what I said. Case in point:
To answer your question, probably Spring to Summer; really depends on how bad this winter is for them and it's looking really bad now.
We are consistently getting reports of 5:1 losses on the Kherson axis and it was recently revealed by one of their own mouth pieces that they've taken 10,000 KIA between that and the recent Kharkov success:
Based on self admitted casualty rates in the Summer from Ukrainian authorities, that would suggest another 30,000 WIA, PoWs, MIA, etc to the KIA total.
In the very first paragraph, I cite a source before I cited that one; are you really that bad at reading or can we assume you're just that bad faith? I immediately follow it up with this guy and then follow that up with a link to a past post that contained five other links to show the progression in Ukrainian losses.
Arestoyvych literally stated: "Something like that" in respond to the number ten thousand.
Indeed, he also said a number that aligned with U.S. intelligence estimates and what Zelensky was saying; there's this thing called preponderance of evidence. I don't take any single source as gospel, I back it up with multiple others as you do in the real world.
US Intelligence Stated:
That is a definition of a low confidence estimate when the number of dead is doubled and told by an anonymous source barely on background. Though the wounded seems surprisingly on point. Yet no one will start with estimates of six thousand KIA I guess.
Hence why I took the median estimate of theirs, and backed it up by showing the later statements by numerous Ukrainian officials; Arestoyvych's figure matches it perfectly, although it came two months later. Switch out either and the math still works, because I didn't start applying the other numbers until June.
And the rest of your "official" tally is just throwing one of a few different numbers across a pattern of weeks. Yet somehow extrapolating between 30-200 dead a day based off of a low confidence estimate median from 5500-11000 five months ago and then reinforcing that with a single data point from a Ukrainian Defense Reporter that ten thousand have been killed in the past three weeks despite him also stating, citing the AFU Commander-in-Chief that almost 9,000 were killed up to August.
Putting official in quotations is interesting because I literally cite Zelensky and his senior officials;
are we to assume the people in charge of Ukraine have no idea what the situation in their own army is? If so, really hammers home why boosting Ukraine is a bad idea if there is that much high level confusion in their command and control.
Likewise, again, we are forced to realize your analytical capabilities do not exist or you're a bad faith actor, because I didn't cite U.S. intelligence to come to those daily loss figures; Ukraine did.
Here's Zelensky doing exactly that, from June 1st:
"The situation is very difficult; we're losing 60-100 soldiers per day as killed in action and something around 500 people as wounded in action. So we are holding our defensive perimeters."
Here's his adviser
Mykhaylo Podolyak updating daily losses to between 100-200 KIA. A few days later, another Zelensky adviser, David Arakhamia,
stated they were losing 300 to 500 KIA a day. In actuality, I've not extrapolated anything, I've literally been taking the senior leadership of Ukraine at their word. That you cited the post I said this in really drives home you either don't know or you're lying for the sake of not wanting to admit you're wrong, which is it?
It seems that the above is the closest we've gotten to "Official Admitted Ukrainian Losses" sadly.
My estimates do give a better idea, yes.
If you're referring to your delusions, then stop and do some basic math with me. Let's say Arestoyvych was off by about an order of magnitude and the real KIA was 8,000 instead of 10,000. Now, Zelensky in July said they were losing 30 a day to KIA and about 230 WIA. KIA alone from July 5th to September 5th is 1,800. WIA, however, is 13,800. Assuming recovery rates are the same for the Ukrainians as the Russians, at 90%, that still means another 1,400 men ultimately died of their wounds. So that's another 3,000 dead all together.
Why does this matter? The Ukrainian General you're citing specifically says fatalities, not KIA/died in battle, which means his figure would include all deaths. What's 8,000 plus another 3,000? A lot more than 9,000 to say the least.
Your basing the ten thousand dead in the past three weeks off of a single data point which you yourself have stated is unreliable. There's absolutely nothing that Arestoyvych or Zelensky or the CIA estimates back in April that factor in the above tweet. Illia Ponomarenko disagreed with the CIA back in April and cited 9000 from a statement from the AFU instead of the "Something like that" 10,000 number from Arestovych. Yet now, we are to be led to believe, oh... he actually doesn't agree with what he posted earlier, he actually agrees with a high end interpretation of the CIA estimate, History Learners tallying of the day by day dead average, the "something like that" estimate of ten thousand dead by Arestoyvych, and this all happened in the past three weeks since he and his newspaper cited the AFU Commander in Chief stating casualties of "almost 9000 Ukrainian dead."
Hence why I didn't cite Zelensky, the CIA, or any of them in my original post as the basis for recent claims; that's entirely an invention of yours. Who I did cite, however, was a Washington Post article interviewing numerous other Ukrainians, doing on the ground research, and then cited Ponomarenko who's statement matched with the report. I also included a link to a past post of mine that cited four senior Ukrainian officials, including their President, as well as an article by the NYT that gave estimates on Ukrainian losses in April so people could see the progression of losses in this war so far.
So, in other words, you're lying. It's that simple.
You are working off of low confidence estimates, then tallying up more low confidence estimates and applying those averages across weeks and months of conflict. I'm sure its a fun mathematical exercise but it doesn't mean anything substantial.
So the President of Ukraine and three of his senior advisers are low confidence estimates? Interesting move Cotton, let's see how it plays out. Speaking of playing that over the course of weeks and months, here's Zelensky doing exactly that:
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the President said that at the height of the hostilities in May and June, Ukraine was losing 100-200 servicemen per day, but now that number has dropped to 30, with about 250 injured per day, reports Ukrayinska Pravda.
"I can tell you for sure, because I live with this every day," he asserted.
Weird Zelensky doesn't seem to agree with your assertion he's giving low confidence estimates.
