Comments by "David Lazarus" (@davidlazarus67) on "US weapons in Russia, fuzzy pics. Orban, no victory for Ukraine. Borrell, Belgorod or Belgrade. U/1" video.

It’s the West and Ukraine’s fault entirely. They had an offer last year that they rejected.
37
@d-rush1219 Yes they messed up for years.
6
Just like Kenny Craig on Little Britain.
6
I think it’s even higher. Remember artillery does a significant amount of damage. The Wagner troops weren’t being asked to take big risks. Progozhin said Wagner has killed 100,000 alone, that would mean more than 30,000 Wagner’s at that rate, and yet the losses in Russia are still low, and these are against fresh recruits so would be much easier to kill.
5
Straight to a Russian museum.
3
@Hawktheattractiveking it might be even higher. Lots of artillery and Ukrainian casualties have a low survival rate because of how far away they have to be treated from the front lines. At the actual front line your figure might be spot on, but with a higher recovery rate.
2
@emmetzet Yes it’s very difficult to determine. Ukraine has massively understated their losses and even the BBC haven’t found lots of casualties in Russia. Once the war is over, the real casualties will be easier to determine. The fact a smaller force is eradicating a much bigger force is unheard of, especially in close quarters combat.
2
@Hawktheattractiveking I don’t think civilian losses are that high, even if you include the 14,000 civilians in the Donbas before the SMO. It might be tiny. The Russians have recovered thousands as they control a town or village. Even the losses in the Ukrainian areas are minimal as well, and most are probably the result of Ukrainian AA hitting residential tower blocks.
2
@Hawktheattractiveking Definitely a meat grinder for Ukraine and NATO troops.
2
The A10’s while better armoured will not be a problem for the Russians. I doubt that they can hide from a Russian long range hypersonic air to air missile.
1