Some vatniks are misrepresenting the NYT article going around. Especially by re-posting the attached picture. Let’s debunk everything that is wrong with it and its representation.
Before we start let me just again express how mind-numbingly stupid the analysis of this war is by western mainstream medias. Being surprised that attacking side suffers casualties when advancing into a heavily fortified enemy defences is beyond dumb. Even the biggest critics of UA noted that the problem was not the quantity of losses, but rather the tactics UA used, which is a valid criticism, and we will get back to it.
The problem of using casualty rates as a measure is that they always need to be compared to estimated casualties. Only by comparing the actual number with estimate we can say whether the casualties are unfavourable. Giving a general absolute number provides no analytical framework.
Second problem with casualty numbers is that they always need to be compared to what goals have been achieved and what is the exchange ratio with the enemy. Because these two can turn any sustained casualties of its heads. If a unit suffers casualties above expected, but still achieves its goals it is still a partial success. Whereas if for example the outlined goal has not been achieved, but the enemy side suffered atrocious casualties in an awful ratio it was still worth it. Since we don’t know UA plans for this phase of offensive in details, we cannot decisively say if what is achieved is in line with their expectations. Therefore, while many vatniks allege that these casualties were lost for nothing, it is completely unfounded belief.
The same for ratio, during the first month UA side released almost no footage and pretty much everything we knew about the offensive was coming out of RU sources. Despite that casualty aggregating projects, such as Oryx that count only visually confirmed losses has counted that losses of RU and UA are ROUGHLY 1:1. Which is unheard of in the style of warfare that UA is fighting. Since then, the ratio has been shifting in favour of UA, as Ukrainians started releasing more videos of their fire missions targeting Russian assets.
Next the 20% figure mentioned in the first paragraph of the article is a representation of a complete bottom feeding state of journalism. Even later in the article it is cleared that 20% mentioned is NOT total UA equipment lost, but rather 20% of destroyed or DAMAGED equipment used in the offensive. This is where the major vatnik cope comes from as statements of UA LOST 20% of EQUIPMENT goes well in what RU propaganda claims in numbers of losses.
The important part is that 20% figure include damaged equipment that was later recovered and more importantly the equipment lost actually did its job of protecting the personnel. More importantly the 20% is not taken from total equipment that UA has prepared for this offensive operation, rather what was engaged at the start of the operation.
For this operation UA has prepared 12 Spearhead brigades whose job it is to engage the enemy and break through the initial defence lines. Additionally, there are AT LEAST 10 more (that I can 100% confirm, some say it’s up to 23 more) brigades that are there for a follow-up to a breakthrough to flow into a created breach and wreak havoc.
Up to this point UA has engaged 4(!) brigades from the spearhead for a dedicated offensive and some artillery elements from the other brigades as support.
So not only this is less than half of the total number of offensive-ready units, but it’s also just 1/3 of the spearhead that is in combat. UA is barely scratching the surface of their resources, especially because the initial stage of offensive operations is ALWAYS the costliest.
Even the article later states that since then UA has improved their tactics and now losses are significantly reduced.
Anyone who is speculating that this offensive failed or UA has lost most of their equipment have no clue what they are talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxKR9dAJ8EXAAlSX9-y7fKRettl2s1H2qA
“Next the 20% figure mentioned in the first paragraph of the article is a representation of a complete bottom feeding state of journalism.”
This just about describes the NYT, who are well known to hate Ukrainians and all they stand for. Any negative news about Ukraine is amplified a 1000% by this crap media organisation.
Something else that is completely missing from the reports and pencil neck analysis is the fact that one side is trying to follow the rules of war…so they can maintain western backing…and the other side has taken the Nazi approach and tossed all the rules and customs of war out of the window.
“the NYT, who are well known to hate Ukrainians and all they stand for.”
I’ve been reading the NY Times for over 50 years; I’ve never seen any sign of that.
NYT hatred of Ukraine goes back to the Holodomor. Google Walter Duranty. Better still see the brilliant film: Mr Jones (2019), starring James Norton as Gareth Jones, who exposed Duranty’s vile activities and was murdered for it by the KBG.
The NYT never apologized and never rescinded Duranty’s Pulitzer.
Furthermore, it still runs anti-Ukraine disinformation from time to time.
A Jewish friend of mine sent me an article in 2015/16 about alleged Ukrainian persecution of Jews. It was total and utter bullshit written by an obvious putler shill.
Thanks for the reference; I never heard of Duranty before. That was in the 1930’s; a bit before my time.
The NYT believed what their foreign correspondent filed; I don’t think that shows hatred on the part of the Times.
“The NYT never apologized”
The following NYT article about this says, “Since the 1980’s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures.”
https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/
“and never rescinded Duranty’s Pulitzer.”
It’s the Pulitzer Prize Board that awards the prize; they’ve twice declined to withdraw the award. And the NYT can’t return it, because they don’t have it in their possession.
“an article in 2015/16 about alleged Ukrainian persecution of Jews” – That’s not much to go on. I did find the following article by the director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, which describes the OUN’s anti-Semitism.
I can’t speak to the accuracy of what he wrote, but I don’t think you can describe the director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee as a “putler shill”…
You proclaim your ignorance on the subject but then continue to protect your liberal sources desperately. This would have been a good time to just be quiet, listen and learn. Learn more, go back and read some of the glowing NYT articles about Stalin and how wonderful they said he was and that he was a much misunderstood reformer…..(enter puking sounds here)……….
I’m not so much concerned about bad journalism and misinformed Joes and Janes on Main Street. Any offensive is tough and demands its losses. I also know the true ratio of AFU/orcs losses, and it’s definitely in favor of the AFU.
What angers me are the morons in high places that have the power to get this war to a successful ending, yet prefer to sit around with their thumbs embedded deeply in their asses … for whatever reason.
One reason President Biden has been slow to send long-range missiles and fighter aircraft to Ukraine is concern about provoking Putin into using tactical nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, Estonia’s prime minister, Kaja Kallas, has said, “If we give out signals that threatening us with a nuclear bomb actually will get you what you want, all the dictators will want to have a nuclear bomb. That is waking up to a much more dangerous world.”
Those are exactly my words. We cannot afford to be blackmailed. Full stop.
“that 20% figure include damaged equipment that was later recovered and more importantly the equipment lost actually did its job of protecting the personnel.”
I made those same points in a comment yesterday.
“the 20% figure mentioned in the first paragraph”
“Even later in the article it is cleared that 20% mentioned is NOT total UA equipment lost, but rather 20% of destroyed or DAMAGED equipment used in the offensive.”
Actually, “lost as much as 20 percent” is in the article’s subheading. The very first paragraph – in fact the very first sentence of the article – makes clear what’s being referred to:
“In the first two weeks of Ukraine’s grueling counteroffensive, as much as 20 percent of the weaponry it sent to the battlefield was damaged or destroyed, according to American and European officials.”
You can read the full article here: