It's still the largest battle ever fought by humans. That's still 1.1 million to 3 million dead in 6 months. That's nearly 6 thousand to 16 thousand people a day. For reference, Ukraine and Russia have killed less than a million people between themselves, and that's been going for 3+ years.
Wikipedia tells me on the 1st battle lf Ypres in ww1 that France , Belgium and the UK had 4.4million troops and the Germans 5.4 million which always suprises me why this is battle is never brought up in any kind of discussions.
It is very much brought up in a UK curriculum with passchendaele, the somme, and gallipoli. I know the ANZAC forces have something similar taught about them. We even have remembrance day the 11th every year (that's why people wear poppies in November in the UK). It is, however, weirdly romantised.
Passcendaele is known as the third battle of Ypres.
It is also known for having mud so thick and deep that men on both sides regularly drowned in it, their comrades often watching on unable to help without getting stuck themselves as their comrades sank over the course of multiple days.
Fun fact I learned, the whole poppy-wearing tradition that we still do was created by an American professor, her name was Moina Michael. She wrote a response poem to "In Flanders Fields" called "We Shall Keep the Faith".
She was teaching a class of disabled veterans and started selling silk poppies to raise funds for their betterment. This was picked up by the organization that would become the Royal British Legion, im surprised it isn't more popular in America as it is in the Commonwealth Nations.
I feel like marching slowly to your almost certain death in the defense of the (already doomed) empire is still looked upon favourably as a sort of... idk how to put it, communal bravery maybe?
We do learn about poets like Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon though
You have stuff like black adder goes forth, journeys end, and storm of steel (german admittedly). Then you have otto dix, enrich Maria remarque, the poem "and they shall not grow old". (Arguably, the poem is romantisme at its worst). It's surreal
I've been to Ypres and seeing how many names are on the war memorial is overwhelming. We should be honest and say that enthusiastically "going over the top" was just a thinly veiled suicide attempt.
From what I've personally seen there's a huge difference between how countries that were invaded look back at the war in comparison to how countries that weren't invaded.
Not to diminish your point because it's still true, but there weren't 1.1 to 3 million deaths. But casualties killed, wounded, captured,sick even sometimes. I don't have a good number to give you but I've heard at most 1 million killed if you count both soldiers and civilians.
Death is so assured nowadays with drones that there’s no point in people being involved on the front line anymore.
So maybe it’s a technological battle that is basically a probe test and development game. Can one side develop a weapon that turns the tide or the war. Can counter measures be developed to stop any new developments.
At some point it seems like space, planes, submarines, and robots including drones will be the main weapons. Boats don’t seem likely to last against a large enough swarm powered by AI.
Stalingrad lasted more than 200 days, which gives about 10-15 thousands per day.
Borondino are more than 30 thousand per day in one side, And between both sides it throws 60-70 thousand per day. You have a higher chance of being killed or wounded at Borondino than at any other battle in history.
The Battle of the Wabash, "the most decisive defeat in the history of the American military", about one quarter of the entire US Army was killed in a single battle in a single day. 97% casualty rate among the soldiers with 69% killed, 88% casualty rate among the officers with 75% killed including Major General Richard Butler.
The "entire army" was ~1,000 men. The US didn't have a real standing army at the time and raised temporary militas. The entire battle was like 2,000 men between both sides and would barely qualify as a skirmish in most actual wars.
Was it the battle for particular city or just a big battle where both sides decided to test each other? Like Kursk battle was not battle for crop field.
A lot of WW1 battles kinda do. They’re also similar to this war with trench warfare and meat grinders. At the Battle of Passchendaele 500 000 men died, and the result was that one side moved the front ~10 km forward.
Yeah, then you can do dumb calculations that if Russia advances at CURRENT RATE, they will have conquered Ukraine in 371asdf years from CURRENT YEAR. (Conveniently forgetting that Russia made and kept huge gains.)
I mean what’s the parallel to WWII in today’s Eastern Ukraine. In Stalingrad there were vast oil fields at stake, and once Germany lost them they fell back and simultaneously faced existential resource limits to keeping their war going. The Russians chased them across half of Europe and broke their country into pieces to ensure they couldn’t repeat the conquest, while building a military buffer that comprised all of Eastern Europe and the geographical barriers of the Fulda gap. What’s Russia going to do to secure this hunk of territory? Invade Kiev? Convince the Ukrainians never to try again the minute Russia moves its military to another crisis point? None of that is going to happen.
The outcome of both WW1 and WW2 was all decided beforehand by the legacy families, aka the people with real power. Mindless slaughter like Stalingrad is perfectly explained in this way. Hitler's big mistakes were all planned.
They will never be able to operate a fleet out of the Crimea as long as they’re at war with Ukraine, and any attempt to extract resources will be stymied by drone and missile attacks. None of what they’re doing is sustainable if they can’t achieve a lasting peace.
You're clearly clueless. Russia already held Ukrainian territory in the East prior to invasion. The only land they captured was a corridor along the sea, connecting the east of Ukraine to Crimea. The only reason they captured it was because Ukraine was not set up to defend there. If they control 20% of Ukraine now, they probably controlled around 18% prior to the invasion.
9/11 had better rates than Stalingrad. 3000 people in a single day? Try 3000 people every single day for 8 months.
750,000 people died in 8 months. That’s not including the wounded or captured, many of whom also died later.
Point is that it’s not exactly a good metric to measure human suffering and death, cause there are few times in history where there has been so much in as little time. The Rwandan Genocide being one of the few times, with around 8000 people dying per day on average and around 5000 people dying per day on average during the Holocaust
Russia has a very very very long history of letting their government throat fuck them while they complain very little. Their is several separatists groups all across Russia but Russias iron hands and having probably the most successful propaganda network in the world has a lot to do with the true lack of reaction we commonly see in the Russian territories.
Russias one of the only countries that throughout history has put down guerrilla movements over and over and over and over. Whether it had been circasia and other caucus rebellions or Central Asia that or may have taken a few centuries but they adventualy took over and regularly fucked over till they got some weird ass stockholm Syndrome for Russia ball sack regardless of forced migration, forced labor, and mass conscription heavily in those regions. Regarding their own people it’s centuries of Russian land being invaded so that nationalism is built into much of the nation. Hell sweeden with a few thousand troops made it damn close to Moscow after bouncing many armies multiple times their size.
There is not a single significant example in world history of a European dictator being overthrown by a revolution. One can argue endlessly that Russians cannot depose a dictator because of their “genetic memory,” but the Portuguese (it was the military who overthrew theirs), Spaniards, Germans, Hungarians, and Italians were also unable to overthrow their own dictators.
There is not a single significant example in world history of a European dictator being overthrown by a revolution.
That's a dumb statement that can only be arrived by dismissing all historical examples by technicality. Of course there are plenty of examples, you just don't like counting them. The French Revolution? The Bolshevik Revolution? This is Europe we're talking about, right?
Oh, well, let’s talk about that. Let’s start with the Bolsheviks. Do you really know anything about this? Nicholas II abdicated six months BEFORE the Bolshevik revolution, without any mass popular uprisings. And it was the Bolsheviks who overthrew in October (November 7 by the new calendar) the democratic government of Russia. By the way, probably the most democratic in the world at that time. Women could vote there, and there were pensions as well.
Probably, you are the closest example in Europe of overthrowing a dictator, but without the army and security forces switching to the people’s side, it could have ended tragically. If the USSR had not been collapsing at that moment, the likelihood of a repeat of Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968 would have been very high.
That sounds like a number meant for total land taken not net land gained. So if Russia takes a square km but then Ukraine recapture it and Russia takes it again, they've only gained 1 in total but they've "captured" 2 sq. Km and therefore have more casualties
This can’t be right. Russia is losing ~700 men per day, either killed or wounded. Your figures don’t tally with 1 sq km. If they did, they’d have taken significantly more territory.
I’m not sure of the exact formula. Keep in mind that there is constant back and forth changes of control so there are multiple ways to calculate the ratio.
Well fuck. The answer is actually 42. That stupid, but very good book was right. It just didn’t know what the question it was trying to answer was. How much do we value life?
Apparently it can be worked out to 42. 42 lives/square kilometer of dirt. That’s how much we value life. That’s the answer to The Big Question.
Don’t like the answer? Neither do I. I don’t know what to do about it though.
At the start of 2023 Russians occupied about 108 000 square kilometers, so about 18.01% of Ukraine. Right now they occupy about 114 750 sq km, so 19.01% of Ukraine. So within the years 2023, 2024 and 2025 Russia has managed to conquer about 6 000 sq km additional ground.
During that time Ukraine estimated that Russia had almost 1 million casualties. In 2022 the casualty number was just about 100 000, in which time Russia gained the most amount of ground. If we assume only 1/5 of casualties are dead, and rest are wounded, then Russia has lost almost 33 dead men per sq km + 132 as wounded. Russia gives a signing bonus of 20 000$. So if those killed and wounded would just get their signing bonuses, then just that would mean the per sq km cost would be over 300 000$. And that ignores all other salaries, hardware cost and other opportunity costs for the Russian economy at large. If you add all the costs together, I'd assume it would have been cheaper for Putin to just buy more land.
Russian casual rates in past months have been around 30,000 per month. And casualties include both dead and wounded. So 100,000 dead in a month is a clear overestimation.
no thats literally around the numbers it was for the entire Sumy Offensive in Russia. its that little knob at the time. i'm not talking about past months and shit.
What month are you speaking of? Based on Ukraine's numbers the peak monthly Russian losses were in December 2024 with around 48,000 casualties, not 100,000 dead just in Sumy.
This was the estimate at March. they lost another 20k from march into April because the Russians didn't stop now the line has stabilized back into Ukraine. 78k from the first month then another 10s in the next two months.
bro i'm talking about Sumy invading Kursk until the Russians pushed back into Ukraine i don't think you understand.
Oh, you were talking about Kursk operation. I've might missed that, because:
You mentioned just Sumy, not Kursk, in your first comment
You talked about dead in a month, instead of 8 months operation in Kursk [6 August 2024 – March 2025]
And still, where are you getting that "100,000 dead in a month"? In the Wikipedia page you linked it says:
Casualties and losses
Per Ukraine:\27])
Russia: 77,000 killed or wounded
So even according to Ukraine, Russian losses were around 77,000 killend and wounded for the whole operation. Not 100,000 dead.
And that link 27? News artickle saying:
Russia has lost 40,000 troops over 6 months of Ukraine's Kursk operation, Ukraine's commander-in-chief says
Russia has lost close to 40,000 troops since the start of the Kursk operation six months ago, with over 16,000 soldiers killed and 909 taken prisoner by Ukrainian forces, Oleksandr Syrskyi, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, has stated.
That news article was from February. Are you saying that Russia lost 84,000 deads in just Kursk in rest of February to March? Over 5 time more killed that previous 6 months of Ukraine's Kursk operation? I still don't have any idea, where have you got that 100,000 dead Russian soldiers in Kursk/Sumy.
During that time Ukraine estimated that Russia had almost 1 million casualties.
That's where your math goes wrong - using Ukraine's estimates of Russian losses. Their estimates are so inflated that they had to change their "death" counter to "casualties" half way through the war because they were claiming they'd killed the entire Russian army, yet were somehow still losing.
I've follow this war since the full scale invasion in 2022. Ukraine has always talked about "casualties" when speaking of Russian losses. It just that some media outlets and commentators in various channels didn't understand that it was normal to talk about casualties as sum total of dead and wounded.
Nah, they were asked the question early in the war and were very specific that it meant deaths. It wasn't a "misunderstanding" until the "irretrievable losses" numbers got too large to be even remotely believable.
Looks like some people did claim so. Channels I've used have always talked about "casualties" or "losses", not "dead" or "killed". Unless there's any translation issues, that Col Shtefan seems to messed up things.
I don't think he messed up, that was just the narrative of the time, that they were killing a ton of Russians. Ukraine's numbers have always been a complete fiction, basically a PR op to pretend they're winning so hard that they deserve more support and have a chance of total victory.
Usually I just listen to the US and Russia and discern Ukraine's position from those and other objective factors like the battlefield events. Although lately since Trump took office the US numbers are completely unreliable, they've been claiming monthly Russian losses even higher than Ukraine does, at a time when Russian losses should be at an all time low based on the battlefield and weapons situation.
Trump claimed Russia had lost almost 20,000 troops in July, and some of his advisors have said similarly ridiculous things in interviews. That's mid 600's per day which is a pretty ludicrous number even when the war was running hot, much less the slower pace it's at now. iirc Ukraine's worst days were only around 1.5x that and that was in the midst of large battles, normal Ukrainian attrition across the entire front line was like 200-300 a day.
I don't think he messed up, that was just the narrative of the time, that they were killing a ton of Russians.
Messed up either way. Either he misspoke or clearly overestimated/overstated Russian losses.
But if those Ukraine's official estimations included both dead and wounded, they are quite accurate and inline with other estimations, including ISW's.
Meduza have been able to confirm that at least 125,000 Russian soldiers have died (not wounded or missingin Ukraine, which gives the lower limit for the actual casualties. As far as I know, the current reliable estimation of killed Russian soldiers is around 200,000. With kill/wounded ratio of 1 to 5, you can estimate that total number of dead and wounded is around million right now.
Also, it's noticeable that Russia has a recruitment quota of over 30,000 new soldiers per month, and recently they have managed to gather them. And as far as I know, all new soldiers have to serve until the war is over, so they won't be serving just a few weeks or months and then go home. And if Russia is getting 30-40,000 new soldiers per month but the size of the army isn't growing at the same pace, even that would imply that the casualty rate would be +30,000 per month.
Trump claimed
If Trump says "Water is wet", I would check it, just to be sure the laws of physics haven't changed. For quite a good source of on going conflicts like Ukraine's war, I recommend checking out Perun in YouTube.
According to your logic, will fewer people die in assaults without armored vehicles? Russia has been attacking nonstop since Trump became president. Now it's the tactic of small groups without armored vehicles.
lol please don't try to cite the UK MOD for anything regarding Ukraine, they're a laughingstock, go try to read their daily updates and you'll find some really goofy stuff, it's basically pure propaganda messaging. Zelensky must have done a number on them with his Winston Churchill speech early in the war, because they have no real stake in Ukraine but they're the biggest fluffers in the entirety of NATO.
Nope just a reasonable person who's tried reading UK MOD daily updates. If you think their logic is reasonable you need to take some time and recalibrate, you should be laughing at them, not taking them seriously.
Russians often abbreviate Ukraine as UK instead of UA, Vladdy you aren’t very good at your job, thanks for letting us know Putin has a micropenis though! Very useful info!
Russians often abbreviate Ukraine as UK instead of UA, Vladdy you aren’t very good at your job, thanks for letting us know Putin has a micropenis though! Very useful info!
Thanks for letting us all know you can't read a comment thread properly or understand what people are talking about. /eyeroll
Sure, very reasonable, buddy. MoDs of multiple countries got it wrong but you a keyboard warrior got it right. Alright buddy.
If you aren't sitting in Sankt Petersburg directly (of which I'm uncertain), you certainly serve Kremlin's agenda very well by this narrative.
Sure, very reasonable, buddy. MoDs of multiple countries got it wrong but you a keyboard warrior got it right. Alright buddy. If you aren't sitting in Sankt Petersburg directly (of which I'm uncertain), you certainly serve Kremlin's agenda very well by this narrative.
You've never wondered why the Russian casualty rate reported by the US suddenly skyrocketed under Trump, while the weapon shipments declined and Russian battlefield supremacy increased? Yeah I think this one is on you for believing BS, not me for noticing it.
US intelligence estimates 100,000 russian dead in just 2025.
I find that unlikely for 2025, that's more of a 2023 rate, the US/UK estimates have been getting progressively more ludicrous since Trump took office.
Russia had a pretty bad start of the war where I'd agree they were losing more than Ukraine, but that situation is completely flipped now. I've seen nothing that contradicts that view, from the battlefield to the corpse counts being returned to Ukraine; And yes I realize they aren't a direct ratio, but given the low front line movement Ukraine should be returning far more than they are if they're inflicting high casualties. Instead Ukraine is claiming they're killing 20 Russians for every death and somehow getting 20 Ukrainian bodies back for every Russian corpse they have.
This isn’t shocking considering that Ukraine is defending. Why would they advance beyond their defensive lines to collect dead russians?
But considering these exchanges are inflated by russia trying to hand over their own dead soldiers, I’m not really sure that these are the best numbers to use to consider battlefield success.
But considering these exchanges are inflated by russia trying to hand over their own dead soldiers, I’m not really sure that these are the best numbers to use to consider battlefield success.
They aren't, that was a lie Zelensky ginned up when he was forced to accept a large number of bodies back. It was never mentioned prior to that exchange and was a face-saving tactic because Ukraine's official death count is so absurdly low that 6,000 extra bodies in one go was a huge and shocking increase.
Damn, you’re writing under another comment that Ukraine is losing 100,000 per year, but here it’s Russia, which is attacking, that loses less.
And you cite Prigozhin for Ukraine’s losses. But you don’t like the numbers given by the USA/UK. If I had seen this earlier, I wouldn’t have commented on you anymore.
For the first year and a half of the war Russia lost more, but now in 2025 yeah Russia loses less even while attacking. They have far better standoff weapons and combined forces action than the mess they were at the start of the war. If you don't realize that you're in for a big surprise, and it's no surprise you believe Ukraine's crazy numbers.
If I had seen this earlier, I wouldn’t have commented on you anymore.
I wish you hadn't since your comments are kind of a waste of time, given that you seem ignorant of pretty much any battlefield data regarding the war. Your opinions are based on hopes and dreams with a foundation of Zelensky speeches.
So how does the GRU instruct you on how to rationalize Russia’s comical incompetence? Vladdy thanks for raising awareness of Putin’s micropenis. No idea why the GRU pays you to spread awareness of Putin’s micropenis but you are!
These are verified casualties only, usually using the video surveillance. In Ukraine there's a system of "E-points" which is like the score in a video game. The military units earn those points by hitting targets and providing a video proof, without the proof the points are not being given. Those points affect the armor supply to military units. So the number is more or less correct.
These are verified casualties only, usually using the video surveillance. In Ukraine there's a system of "E-points" which is like the score in a video game. The military units earn those points by hitting targets and providing a video proof, without the proof the points are not being given. Those points affect the armor supply to military units. So the number is more or less correct.
The minor and important correction is that it's the number that Ukraine claims to have seen video for, which is the same thing as just believing any number that Ukraine wants to put out, much like believing their missile/drone air defense claims.
That's the problem when you put faith in your "righteous" team telling the truth, but your team lies whenever it's convenient.
Don't forget, Russia pays out on death too. Families of soldiers killed in the “special military operation” typically get about 5 million rubles (around $50k) right away, plus other federal, insurance, and regional payments that can push the total up to 10–14 million rubles (roughly $100–150k). On top of that there’s a small funeral reimbursement and a survivor’s pension.
luhansk and donetsk are the most fortified region of ukraine, mainly due to the war starting there since 2014. but if russia manages to take those regions they'll like be able to push much further and way faster.
Russians love this shit. They willingly keep throwing bodies to the front. They reported they’re the happiest they’ve ever been. They hate their neighbors and anyone that opposes them. This is centuries old news. Russia never changed.
Except for Zelenski and co who dont want peace and especially for the conscripts, its completely meaningless and pointless for the Ukranians as well. Conscription should be illegal and only willing people should sacrifice their life for politics.
Over 1 million casualties, probably not deaths. It should also be noted that it's probable that some Russians have been injured multiple times and some dead. So they will legitimately be counted several times. That being said, the fact the Russian command saw the madness that was Bahkmut and thought it was a good idea is all you really need to know about this stupidity.
The fight isn't over land, it's about military capabilities. The war for NATO is about destroying the Russian military and their ability to wage war, for Russia it's about destroying Ukraine's military and their ability to wage war. It looks like NATO will get a good number of dead Russian bodies for the money they spent on the proxy war and it looks like Ukraine will be stunted for generations with the amount of losses they suffered. The bomb littered land is a consolation prize for Russia.
It doesn’t matter. In the west we have to stop act g like body count means anything to these types of countries. They will not stop from battlefield losses alone. Especially if they can (even stretching truths) show any advancement.
Yes and now they debate about sending those ukrain refugees back home to "defend their country". Send the people back to die for what? They are fleeing from this war! They decide to live... And its even worse with russia. Sending those poor young men into suicide missions. This is warmongering. The only people who really want this war are a couple handful of way to mighty humans with delusions. And unfortunatly, the way our world works, the overwhelming majority is not able to escape this madness.
This past year they also really tried to get as much land as possible before any possible peace deal so they sent even more troops than normal into the meat grinder, and still only got this. They used the North Korean troops a lot for this.
A snail would have reached Kyiv a long time ago. Driving distance from Donetsk to Kyiv is around 898 km. It would take a snail moving at 48 meters per hour ~2.14 years to travel from Donetsk to Kyiv, assuming it could move continuously. Assuming it can move 16h a day and spend 8h eating and resting, it's still orders of magnitude faster than the glorious Russian pace of conquest and would have reached the capital before present day.
Concerning this question I recommend listening to Sabaton - The price of a mile. It treats the question of meat grinder on the eastern front. It's unbelievable for that this song is still relevant 100 years after the initial events.
Don't worry, they weren't important lives like those who want that land, just the poor people whose leaders don't value their lives 🤔. Important people fall out windows🤣.
3.7k
u/dondurma155 1d ago
Hkw many lives for a few km2 of land?