Let's say you're right. This random German reporter, who's never been to the places he's reporting from, and who faces heavy criticism and backlash from people more intimately familiar with the situation; let us say that he is right and Russia only lost 13 people in giving up Lyman. I mean, it's ridiculous but let's try it on for size.
I know you're bad faith, even this is a new low for you:
The 13 was referring to a specific unit, and he explicitly stated as such; at least try to be convincing when lying. Likewise, it's very interesting you've decided to add caution on reporting on casualties, when in past conversations on the topic of casualties you made no such distinctions; very curious indeed. That you consider randoms on Twitter is valid pushback is also something I must file as interesting, again, given our past convos.
Do you think it actually stands Russia in good stead that they pussied out, ran for the hills, and once again lost and abandoned a ton of equipment, in a battle that saw barely a dozen casualties? When they were protecting a strategically significant and logistically vital hub, the entire force gave up and fucked off, because half a platoon bought it? Fighting to the death can be dumb, but so is the opposite extreme.
Or, we could also realize you're acting in comically bad faith and/or have poor reading comprehension; both fit the scenario. Total KIA of around 100 around Lyman is his guess, followed by another 200 to 300 in the evacuation days given the circumstances. That would suggest another 1,500 WIA. Russian sources claimed it was 500 defending the city itself, while Ukrainians said up to 5,500. AFU claimed they were attacking with around 12,000 men, Russians claimed up to 25,000. Take your picks on these number, and then consider the fact the Russians held out for almost three weeks.
Oh wait! Your Kremlin sponsors claim there was only ever a couple hundred people there to start with, don't they? It's a pretty sad and worrying sign that even so vital a location only merits 1 or 2 companies.
Sweetie, I'm absolutely delighted to know you think like this; it fills me with joy to know I live in your head rent free to such an extent you think I'm getting paid to make you seethe so much. Specific to your points raised, you provide a case in point of why I gladly do it for free. The Russian claim of 500 would actually correspond to a battalion level unit and was specifically for the garrison of Lyman itself. Once again, we find out you don't even know basic military details, so I'm glad I'm here to explain concepts you feel so confidant in attempting to act haughty on.
I guess they were needed down in Kherson to stop the offensive there. Too bad they couldn't. I mean... Try as you'd like to spin this, Russia are losing ground on all fronts. They're deploying unmotivated and untrained fools who failed to join the mass exodus, without even basic equipment. Their high command are more concerned with arguing over who's fault it is than fixing things.
Except they are training and equipping them, for one, and that Russian has lost territory I've never contested; I correctly predicted what would happen after Lyman. The main point, which I've already cited, is the complete failure of Ukraine to inflict a decisive defeat upon the Russian so far; that leaves the core Russian Army intact to which the newly mobilized can be built off of.
Ya know... I seem to recall you making some bold claims about casualty figures. I think if we'd accepted your BS, we'd have to believe that Ukraine are fielding ghosts at this point. Funnily enough, it's Russia who are suffering a man power shortage.
Which is a funny way of saying you're mischaracterizing the argument, given it was about AFU losses suffered to date. Back in May, I believe it was, I did state if Ukrainian losses continue on in the same rate they'd run out of bodies in a year.