Comments by "Far Centrist" (@far_centrist) on "Bakhmut: The Bloodiest Battle of the Ukraine War, Explained | WSJ" video.

Catastrophic loss of 20k against the enemy 100k+? I'd say they're doing pretty well.
3
@Homer-OJ-Simpson taking a satellite picture of body is only possible if the bodies is in the open field and visible, not covered in mud. If the body is in the forest or under the rubble of building, it's not going to be possible. Destroyed vehicle doesn't always led to crew's death. In fact, most videos coming out of this war shows tank being disabled, the crew fled, and then the tank destroyed after to keep it from being repaired and re-enter battle. It seems it is easier for you to make random arguments and call people names than actually saying something meaningful. But here's the truth: the 20k-30k number came from the research done on surveillance of graveyard, combing rus social media of the soldiers family, verifiable picture evidence of their dead body and other verifiable sources. As for ukr, they are keeping the figures hidden. But there are several sources that may be credible. Eu commisioner has said that ukr losses is over hundreds of thousands. Then there's the recently leaked ukr documents showing their casualties number as well as equipment deficit for the spring offensive.
2
@Homer-OJ-Simpson i think you are forgetting that this estimate is not on the low side, but on generous side. In fact, the 30k estimates will only be real if the purported "human wave tactics" is actually being employed. But this makes no sense for the party with superior firepower to do such a thing, especially since one of the latest interview of ukr soldiers serving in bakhmut describe otherwise where the rus would shell their position to smithereens before moving in on a group of five, sometimes in two or three groups to flank/storm the trench. And this testimony is also backed by many drone footage from the rus side showing exactly that. Going by this, it is practically impossible for rus to suffer such massive casualties. This unfortunately came down just about the same as the "200k total of dead rus troops" which was never broken down or explained where such figures came from.
2
@Homer-OJ-Simpson the fact that you keep resorting to "education" insult shows that you simply wants to shut down any opposition voice through aggressive gesture, even when no education in general would teach anything about death figure calculation in war which makes your insult to be pure nonsense.
2
The problem of pulling back is that it opens the way to the ukranian last holdings in kramatorks and sloviansk line, which is a worse defense position than bakhmut. If the ukr forces got repelled from there too, then it will be a political blow to the leadership, as well as to the public morale since rus managed to claim the whole of donbas. Not to mention this opens the way for further offensives in zaporozhye, kherson, or even kharkov since their objective in donbas is achieved.
2
@Homer-OJ-Simpson it's quite funny how you took issue with the methodology of combing the social media and grave survey, calling it uneducated. When this is exactly the methodology used by BBC funded research in a collaboration with a think tank to research the verifiable number of casualties. When you're calling a solid methodology used by a think tank "uneducated", it really shows who's the uneducated one here. "They verified 20k and with the estimate it's actually 50k" excuse me what? What sort of rubbish methodology would actually multiply the number of dead by 2.5 times without any explanation? And why are you proceeding to multiply it by another 4.5? "Casualties are usually about 4.5 of that" what? Source? Lol this is the funniest thing i read today 🤣🤣🤣 seriously, battlefield is a large place. Multiplying everything based on the most active region of conflict makes no sense when other frontline is in relatively quite situation. "Released footage of human wave tactics" okay where do i watch it? Please provide a source. It's weird how you never seem to be able to grasp how your own methodology of "counting a number of dead tanks from drone footage and pictures and then multiply it by average" despite how this makes no sense at all. First, how do we tell that a picture and drone footage is not that of the same tank taken at a different angle, or different time? Second, how do we know that the destroyed tank belongs to ukr or rus, considering both used the same tank? It's like counting the average number of yearly fallen apples in an orchard without considering the change in weather, disease pest, etc. None of that. Just multiply it! And finally, no source, and i mean NONE, who came up with the 30k casualties number ever explained how they came to that number and what methodology they used, and you are the closest one who even put out a speculative methodology which you attributed to the 30k figures they came out with. Usually when calculating things like these, what you do is track down which regiment fight where, how many casualties in that regiment in a certain battle. It doesn't have to be precise, but you can at least get an idea of the average number of casualties in different fronts each day. 200k? That's literally half of the deployed rus forces. The frontline should have been crumbling in many places by now if it's true. Seriously, which regiment suffers what amount of casualties? Which regiment had been reinforced? No explanation at all. Maybe its you who should get education lol
1