Thanks for that Richard. The Russian MoD has not included the part two section you quote on its website but it is on its Telegram channel - which is a strange oversight. I have been using the MoD website for my figures so I have been underestimating. I will use the Telegram channel in future. Cheers.
I'll get my figures from the MoD Telegram channel in future.. BTW I didn't get a reply to my mail to b so I decided to post a link to my Update on the MoA. It hasn't been taken down yet.
"The enemy losses were up to 110 Ukrainian servicemen..."
Such statements lack a lower limit. How are such statements meant? Strictly speaking such statements were true even if there are 0 losses of Ukrainian servicemen - but that is clearly not how the statements are meant. Does the original Russian text imply a lower limit?
thanks richard.. cheers james
Hi Richard,
How do we know that ‘losses’ represent only KIAs, and don’t include both dead and injured?
Thanks for your articles.
Terrible numbers 😪
Thanks for that Richard. The Russian MoD has not included the part two section you quote on its website but it is on its Telegram channel - which is a strange oversight. I have been using the MoD website for my figures so I have been underestimating. I will use the Telegram channel in future. Cheers.
I'll get my figures from the MoD Telegram channel in future.. BTW I didn't get a reply to my mail to b so I decided to post a link to my Update on the MoA. It hasn't been taken down yet.
Thanks for that Richard. I know very little about how this all works.
"The enemy losses were up to 110 Ukrainian servicemen..."
Such statements lack a lower limit. How are such statements meant? Strictly speaking such statements were true even if there are 0 losses of Ukrainian servicemen - but that is clearly not how the statements are meant. Does the original Russian text imply a lower limit?