this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
326 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39356 readers
3005 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Russia has sustained over 600,000 casualties since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Defense News reported on Oct. 9, citing senior Pentagon officials.

. . .

The accelerating losses are disproportionate with Moscow's territorial gains, a senior U.S. defense official said on Oct. 9.

"Russian losses, again both killed and wounded in action, in just the first year of the war exceeded the total of all Soviet losses in any conflict since World War II combined," the official said.

The mounting casualties at the front may hinder the Russian military's recruitment efforts, the official said, putting pressure on the Kremlin to initiate a new wave of mobilization.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I think if they drag the war out so long that kids not even conceived today are potential soldiers, then soldiers will be the least of their problems.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

It’s also about the economic impact of loosing that many people.

I don’t know of many places where polygamy is tolerated, and unless they go that route, if they lose 20% of their male population…. That’s a 20% reduction in that generation’s children too.

Granted, I wouldn’t put it past Putin/the kremlin to get single women preggo by force. Assholes.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

the russians are probably doing this thinking of the time after the war. better start asap while they send so many to their death.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The US did it.

We were invading the Middle East since before I was born, and I almost signed up to get free school when I wanted to be a doctor. I would have likely treated soldiers that were still being wounded in the Middle East.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Oh, totally. Afghanistan had multiple generations tied up in it, which is horrendous.

However, the US also didn’t take nearly the losses that Russia is throwing “into the grinder” as the parent post puts it.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago

It's to replenish for the next war, and the next and the next.