- bdonvr ( @bdonvr@thelemmy.club ) English22•1 year ago
I don’t care who you support, this would be a bad and biased source
It’s also the only source that publishes. Oryx documentation indicates direct photographic evidence for 50% of the numbers listed here and when you consider that most Russian losses are in areas not easily photographed by civilians this is a strong indicator these reports have some basis in reality. That said, I agree these numbers should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt.
- fiah ( @fiah@discuss.tchncs.de ) English2•1 year ago
the source (UA general staff) is obviously biased, yes, but we don’t know how good or bad it is yet
here’s the original source (yes it’s facebook): https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid029Hp57mafK62hrb2gQMqQfL8inL45TErQCHSSQWgsBBGvLQZGW7u275LDutt7QZpJl
- ghost_laptop ( @gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml ) English8•1 year ago
Ukraine reporting about Russia, let me be skeptical.
- Potatofish ( @Potatofish@lemmy.ml ) English9•1 year ago
They weren’t too far off from the Pentagon’s estimates the last time they published. It’s not like they are saying that 30 Himar platforms were destroyed yesterday
- Potatofish ( @Potatofish@lemmy.ml ) English4•1 year ago
They weren’t too far off from the Pentagon’s estimates the last time they published.
- Stereocloud ( @Stereocloud@lemmy.ca ) English2•1 year ago
The diagram is roughly, all Russian losses since the start of invasion
- tchotchony ( @tchotchony@mander.xyz ) English1•1 year ago
I don’t get it, are those exponentials? But why the +0 then, they could’ve just put 1…
- CatsGoMOW ( @CatsGoMOW@beehaw.org ) English6•1 year ago
They are not exponents. I believe they indicate the additional numbers lost on July 4.