this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
787 points (98.4% liked)

World News

44583 readers
4244 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lumony 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The thing is, for the war it doesn’t really have much meaning whether the loss is through death or a serious wound.

Not true. A soldier that's killed isn't going back home to his family. He'll never have kids. He'll never contribute to the economy ever again.

Trying to say kills don't matter in a war is retarded.

[–] Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

I largely agree with you on that.

But, that depends on who is using the numbers. For immediate military use it is not important what happens after the war. For the general who is planning a war strategy, what matters is how much the army is losing manpower. For the society it does matter whether the lost manpower is dead or just missing one arm, but for the war strategy it doesn't.

Albeit, I do somewhat disagree with this myself. I keep arguing that although the total military losses of Ukraine are close to those of the Russia, it makes a huge difference that the number of dead soldiers is smaller even in proportion to Ukraine's population than the number of dead Russian soldiers is in proportion to the Russia's population. It also seems that Ukraine's recruitment capacity (in absolute numbers) is at least on par with that of the Russia and it's unclear if its maximum capacity has even been reached.

Ukrainian soldiers seem to always receive decent prosthetics that enable them to remain in working life and be with their families. In that case it is not a huge loss for the society that a soldier has got seriously wounded. If the risk of death was as high as that of Russians', there would be (even) less motivation to enlist.

But, be it like this or that, the reality is that the common practice in wars is to assume it makes no difference whether the lost soldier is dead or crippled, and because of that, they typically count military losses, not military deaths. Regardless of how retarded that is.