In another blow to transparency, Putin classifies peacetime Spetsnaz losses

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

but about coffins getting back with a flag on them.

 

Which is a dignity denied to the Russian war dead from Ukraine.  You're missing the point.  Showing photos of the dead at a solem occasion is questionable, and does nothing to remove the reality of how/where they died.  Putin just reserved the right to deny any information at all about the death of Russian servicemen, which you are apparently okay with because CNN used to not be allowed to film an event designed to be a respectful, quiet ceremony.

 

So tell me instead of trying to run down this rabbit hole of non-comprehension.  Is it okay to lie about the fates of soldiers or being at war at all?

[John Kettler]

Seems to me that many here have no idea, none, how adroit the Pentagon and various administrations are when it comes to hiding the grisly truth of America's wars from both the American people and the world at large. What I've provided here barely scratches the surface.

 

Pentagon is hiding the dead

 

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-pentagon-is-hiding-the-dead-862a7b45ce57

 

American Military Casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan Now Exceed 500,000 (Part 1 of 2)

PENTAGON FUDGES THE NUMBERS TO PLACATE AMERICAN PUBLIC

Friday 18 June 2010, by Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain

http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article15450

 

KabulPress.org is a respected, much cited organization. The editor himself was arrested and interrogated for nine hours by Afghan Secret Police in 2007.

 

http://www.kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article4050

 

Former Air Force Captain Joyce Riley, a nurse who has tirelessly advocated for decades (I first came across her ~1997) on behalf of the grotesquely abused by the USG Gulf War veterans and herself a survivor of Gulf War Syndrome, despite having never been in-theater, merely nursed the medevaced troops, has put together a stunning array of evidence of the true cost to our warriors of wars and weapon tests alike. This is but a tiny part of a very substantial site, just a list of articles.

 

When it comes to properly accounting for the true human costs of America's wars to Americans, I have zero trust in the Pentagon, based on decades of deliberate misinterpretation, deception, definition alteration, and outright knowing whoppers of the cruelest sort. If possible, the situation's even worse when it comes to everyone else. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited May 31, 2015 by John Kettler

[whitehot78]

Which is a dignity denied to the Russian war dead from Ukraine.  You're missing the point.  Showing photos of the dead at a solem occasion is questionable, and does nothing to remove the reality of how/where they died.  Putin just reserved the right to deny any information at all about the death of Russian servicemen, which you are apparently okay with because CNN used to not be allowed to film an event designed to be a respectful, quiet ceremony.

 

So tell me instead of trying to run down this rabbit hole of non-comprehension.  Is it okay to lie about the fates of soldiers or being at war at all?

 

Ofc it is not ok to lie about the fate of soldiers - and if it was for me, it wouldn't be right to be at  war at all.

The initial post talked about Special Operations casualties abroad, which is, imho a matter that no government would publicly discuss.

 

If on one side, I don't condone or justify the actions of  Mr.Vladimir Putin, I don't put much trust in governments who limit freedom of press, in any form. America has had wars, before Irak and the Bush administration, yet no government had made laws to forbid the filming of the casualties coming back home. So the question is, was the Bush administration more respectful and sensible to the soldiers whose death it caused than the previous administrations? Or it has, just maybe a little, vilified the principles of the constitution which it had swore on?

 

If I may arise the doubt that I'm drawing parallels between mr. Putin administration of Russia and mr. G.W Bush administration of the US, then I admit I have that temptation, although in proper social, political and historical contexts

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Okay.  For the last time:

 

There never was an attempt to conceal the nature of the deaths of US servicemen and women.  Top to bottom, right to left, that they died in combat as part of operations covered by OIF/OEF, or other events (suicide in theater, fell of a truck and broke their back, fatal snake bite, whatever) in theater.  Never at any point did the US also claim a total lack of US forces in either theater (while details as to where the various SOF teams were in Afghanistan after hostilities kicked off were sparse, there was no denial that US forces were on the ground doing things).

 

The not filming the return of US dead is something that was supposed to be respectful in regards it's basically part of the funeral procession.  And even then nothing stopped the media from getting permission from the families of those KIA to film events occurring after the return flight, nor was there a denial that the return flight was happening.  The information provided by X number of coffins returning was the same information provided when the news announced X number of folks killed in Iraq.  There's no difference between those numbers.

 

Re: kettlarian stuff

 

A lot of those articles show a great deal of bias to put it mildly.  I won't go too far into the Iraqi body count thing except for to say tracking ANY numbers of Iraqis doing anything alive, dead, or indifferent was problematic to say the least.  You'd have people come in to claim all 20 members of their families were killed by a US airstrike (despite there not having been a plane dropping bombs in the AO in years), or you'd go into the local park that was too dangerous for anyone for the last year, and find the corner that had become the general purpose body dump for all Iraqi parties, sunni, shia, indifferent.

 

The whole "large scale killings" of Iraqi civilians by the US though...we generate a lot of paperwork.  And there's a lot of cross-unit situational awareness.  So to that end, unless there were special stealth teams of US forces going around killing civilians more or less at random...uh yeah wasn't happening that often.  You'd get a lot of Iraqi blame directed at US units for whatever death just happened, but even a cursory reading of some of the stories put some pretty strong doubts (my favorite was a US black HMMWV shooting people with a suppressed machine gun and then stealing the bodies to sell the internal organs to the jews).

 

In terms of casualty as in injury counting, stuff that's generally just a hazard of being in uniform doesn't get rolled up into the losses normally.  While it's hard to argue someone falling off a truck and breaking their arm in Iraq wouldn't have happened if they weren't in Iraq....it's pretty easy to rightly claim soldiers fall of trucks regardless of what part of the planet they're on.  Same deal with the hearing loss.  I've suffered service related hearing loss.  It's also because after 8 years of weapons ranges, vehicle noises, having the volume in my headset cranked up so I can hear what's going over the background noise that my hearing has suffered.

 

Did my time in Iraq make it better?  Likely not. Do I consider myself Iraqi/Afghanistan injured like the article claims?  Roflno.  And that's the case for a lot of that article.  And that's hardly sweeping much of anything under the rug.

 

Which isn't to say I trust the government, I'm just saying it's much too incompetent most of the time to pull off the sort of deceptions folks think it does as a matter of course.  

[Los]

Ok Jon that's a laughable article. Anyone who ever got a case of the runs, anyone who ever suffered hearing loss is now a war casualty. That's about everyone that's ever been in the service! (Including me) Seriously man you undermine your own arguments with stuff like that.

Los

[agusto]

America has had wars, before Irak and the Bush administration, yet no government had made laws to forbid the filming of the casualties coming back home. So the question is, was the Bush administration more respectful and sensible to the soldiers whose death it caused than the previous administrations? Or it has, just maybe a little, vilified the principles of the constitution which it had swore on?

 

1) Iraq was the first war in which the US army used the concept of embeded reporters.

2) Only embedded reporters were not allowed to film casualties. Non-embedded, classical reporter were allowed to film what ever they got in front of their lense.

 

So if anything, the concept of the embedded reporter enhanced and supported the press, it didnt prevent the press from doing anything they did before the concept of embedded reporters was invented. Of course the US army used this as a tool for media warfare, but the reporters were 1) certainly aware of that and 2) not limited in by any means in doing their job the classical way.

 

Also the ceremonies involving coffins were closed ceremonies in general. Non-public, invite only.

Edited May 31, 2015 by agusto

[AttorneyAtWar]

Its sad to say, but I think the only thing that actually gets through the thick head of the American public that we are at war was seeing those reports with the coffins coming home. People are so detached in this country its almost laughable in a horrifying way, I did a report on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in my senior year of High School, at the end of the writing assignment we had to give a speech on our topic to the class. I had a few questions where my classmates failed to realize we were fighting in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan, they were smart people too, and thats when I realized that we have a serious problem here.

 

A bit off topic, but its already depressing enough that the level of veterans care in this country is so lacking as well, suicide rates are shocking and I highly doubt what I just typed above has nothing to do with it.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Raptorx7

[sburke]

 

Former Air Force Captain Joyce Riley,  herself a survivor of Gulf War Syndrome, despite having never been in-theater.  Wait, what did that just say??  Did I really just quote someone with half assed credentials like that?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Oh look, someone said the real cause of the Iraq war was a hidden stargate.  I found it on the Net, it MUST be true!!!!

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread256197/pg1

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Look into the suicide numbers.  You'll find they're up for soldiers...but they're not up for guys who've deployed.  It matches a wider increase in suicides for the 16-22 population.  

 

Which is sort of why the suicide prevention focus in the army went away from "YOU SURVIVE IRAQ AND NOW LIVE THROUGH THIS FOR AMERICA!" or "warrior/think spartan*" focused resilience because it turned out, the combat vets weren't the risk group.  It's the 18-20 year group offing themselves because of 18-20 something age group problems.  

 

*Seriously.  By month five or six, you've got a coping mechanism.  You don't need to be told you're ultramaxstrongwarrior.  My whole plan for surviving Iraq was:

 

1. Video games.  Once you're done for the day, change into your PTs, sit down for an hour or two and play xbox.

2. Care packages.  I'd order stuff like games and books, and then keep track of how much longer I had until they showed up, as it's easier to count down the 9-14 days it took from ordering something on Amazon to get to me, than count down the remaining 240 days of deployment.

3. I had a remote controlled Abrams and Sherman tank that shot airsoft pellets.  I'd take those out behind my living area, lay out some styrofoam cups, then drive the tank around drilling those cups.  

 

For some folks it was porn, working out, whatever, but finding something to do that wasn't Iraq focused was pretty key.  

 

Either way off topic, but it made sitting in the powerpoint briefing on being max emotional strong through warrior centric focus battle meditation or whatever crap the army was trying to genuinely help us in a hamfisted way with bothersome.

[agusto]

Its sad to say, but I think the only thing that actually gets through the thick head of the American public that we are at war was seeing those reports with the coffins coming home. People are so detached in this country its almost laughable in a horrifying way, I did a report on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in my senior year of High School, at the end of the writing assignment we had to give a speech on our topic to the class. I had a few questions where my classmates failed to realize we were fighting in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan, they were smart people too, and thats when I realized that we have a serious problem here.

 

 

 

Had you shown your classmates photos of of coffins with US flags on them, would those photos have informed them that the US are fighting in Afgahnistan and Iraq simultaniously? No, they had not. But a newspaper article would have informed them. Or even better, reading newspapers everyday would have informed them.

 

But i agree with you, the fact that some many voters are so badly informed is definately a problem. In general, in every democratic country, not only in the US.

Edited May 31, 2015 by agusto

[AttorneyAtWar]

Had you shown your classmates photos of of coffins with US flags on them, would those photos have informed them that the US are fighting in Afgahnistan and Iraq simultaniously? No, i would not. But a newspaper article would have informed them. Or even better, reading newspapers everyday would have informed them.

 

But i agree with you, the fact that some many voters are so badly informed is definately a problem. In general, in every democratic country, not only in the US.

 

Sorry Agusto I should have put these two points in separate paragraphs, what I meant by the coffins comment was that the American public should understand through that the reality and cost of the war, the blissful ignorance of where we are fighting is another problem.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Raptorx7

[agusto]

Sorry Agusto I should have put these two points in separate paragraphs, what I meant by the coffins comment was that the American public should understand through that the reality and cost of the war, the blissful ignorance of where we are fighting is another problem.

 

I understand. But as i said before in one of my last posts, it' s always a cost-gain question when you want to do something that might hurt someone. Let' s take a look at the coffins thing. On the one hand, you say that showing the coffins would help the American public understand that the cost of war are human lifes, and i agree with you that this could be a way that works. But on the other hand, you have the personality rights of the deceased and the emotions of their relatives. The question now is: is ignoring the the emotions of the relatives and the personality rights of the fallen worth educating the public AND is there a way the public could be educated without having to hurt someone? I think that the interestes of the relatives and the personality rights of the deceased are worth more because there is a huge number of different ways that can be used to educate the public about the costs of war. The exception to the rule would be the case were the fallen soldier agrees to his coffin/funeral beeing shown on TV or (ideally) both the relatives and the soldier agree.

Edited May 31, 2015 by agusto

[AttorneyAtWar]

I understand. But as i said before in one of my last posts, it' s always a cost-gain question when you want to do something that might hurt someone. Let' s take a look at the coffins thing. On the one hand, you say that showing the coffins would help the American public understand that the cost of war are human lifes, and i agree with you that this could be a way that works. But on the other hand, you have the personality rights of the deceased and the emotions of their relatives. The question now is: is ignoring the the emotions of the relatives and the personality rights of the fallen worth educating the public AND is there a way the public could be educated without having to hurt someone? I think that the interestes of the relatives and the personality rights of the deceased are worth more because there is a huge number of different ways that can be used to educate the public about the costs of war. The exception to the rule would be the case were the fallen soldier agrees to his coffin/funeral beeing shown on TV or (ideally) both the relatives and the soldier agree.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I am not advocating for an invasion of privacy, obviously pictures like that would be up to the families. If anything my point with the coffins is that something of that magnitude would be required, I am not saying that it should be done. Hopefully this wasn't too poor of a choice as an example but I feel very strongly about this topic, as should everyone else in this country.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Raptorx7

[John Kettler]

There are better articles out there to illustrate some of the points I'm making, but finding them while in the moment is another matter altogether. I know they exist, for I've read them. For a very long time now, by extremely creative accounting, the Pentagon has dramatically reduced actual war losses. If you don't die in-theater, it doesn't count as a war death. If you are badly wounded, released from the service and subsequently die because of wounds sustained in-theater, that doesn't count, either. Nor do war created PTSD related suicide and other fatality inducing problems, such as GWS, also shown to be contagious. For ages the Pentagon denied any responsibility whatsoever to the Agent Orange afflicted Nam vets whose lives, and those of their families (dioxin is a proven and potent teratogen and mutagen), were wrecked by what the Pentagon knew full well had terrible effects on humans. Maybe things have changed lately, in both war casualty definitions and in the way the senior people at the Pentagon operate, but considering every US service academy places enormous emphasis on honesty and integrity, I'd argue that, decades ago, periodic refresher courses in both should've been made mandatory for all leaders at the Pentagon! 

 

I am happy to report, though, the US Army seems to have gotten certain things sorted out. According to my brother, now retired, when you come in, the Army does a comprehensive assessment of your health. When you're getting ready to be discharged, another such assessment is done. The delta is then used to figure out your service related injuries, if any, and resulting disability level, all set forth by category and then summed. If it gets high enough part or even all of retirement pay becomes tax free. This appears to be the human version of the "you broke it, you bought it"approach common in many small businesses, such as antiques. It marks, I think, a major improvement in the care of and respect for our warriors by their parent services. Unfortunately, the VA, which is supposed to care for our soldiers after they leave the military, is so horrendous it may require truly draconian measures to recalibrate its leadership and get it to do such things as provide timely review and fair treatment of veteran's cases and medical needs, as opposed to the documented burning of many  medical files to reduce the case backlog! If that isn't monstrous evil, I don't know what is.

 

 

And don't get me started on the Great Betrayal of military personnel with the promise of free lifetime medical care, then reneging. And that's atop a drastic truncation in access to PX/BX facilities and their vital commissaries. Retirement planning for ex-service personnel was predicated on exactly such access. What used to be conveniently nearby is now hours away for many.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited May 31, 2015 by John Kettler

[Nidan1]

I think that Americans are very educated as to the real cost of war, we really don't have to see bodies and coffins to realize what we are paying. You can just count up the dead and maimed since 1914 to realize it.

 

During WW2 a British film maker (who later became a US Marine), Louis Hayward made a documentary of the battle for Tarawa atoll. The film was raw combat footage and so graphic that President Roosevelt himself had to approve it for viewing by the American public. No You tube or Wiki leak back then, the newsreels of the war were shown in movie theaters. 

 

What ultimately occurred after American moviegoers saw the real horror of what was going on in the Pacific was that war bond sales went through the roof. 

 

Once the service member is dead, his pain is over, it is the family that have to carry on with the loss of a loved one. I would never want the body of my son to be part of someones you tube feed.

[Nidan1]

There are better articles out there to illustrate some of the points I'm making, but finding them while in the moment is another matter altogether. I know they exist, for I've read them. For a very long time now, by extremely creative accounting, the Pentagon has dramatically reduced actual war losses. If you don't die in-theater, it doesn't count as a war death. If you are badly wounded, released from the service and subsequently die because of wounds sustained in-theater, that doesn't count, either. Nor do war created PTSD related suicide and other fatality inducing problems, such as GWS, also shown to be contagious. For ages the Pentagon denied any responsibility whatsoever to the Agent Orange afflicted Nam vets whose lives, and those of their families (dioxin is a proven and potent teratogen and mutagen), were wrecked by what the Pentagon knew full well had terrible effects on humans. Maybe things have changed lately, in both war casualty definitions and in the way the senior people at the Pentagon operate, but considering every US service academy places enormous emphasis on honesty and integrity, I'd argue that, decades ago, periodic refresher courses in both should've been made mandatory for all leaders at the Pentagon! 

 

I am happy to report, though, the US Army seems to have gotten certain things sorted out. According to my brother, now retired, when you come in, the Army does a comprehensive assessment of your health. When you're getting ready to be discharged, another such assessment is done. The delta is then used to figure out your service related injuries, if any, and resulting disability level, all set forth by category and then summed. If it gets high enough part or even all of retirement pay becomes tax free. This appears to be the human version of the "you broke it, you bought it"approach common in many small businesses, such as antiques. It marks, I think, a major improvement in the care of and respect for our warriors by their parent services. Unfortunately, the VA, which is supposed to care for our soldiers after they leave the military, is so horrendous it may require truly draconian measures to recalibrate its leadership and get it to do such things as provide timely review and fair treatment of veteran's cases and medical needs, as opposed to the documented burning of many  medical files to reduce the case backlog! If that isn't monstrous evil, I don't know what is.

 

 

And don't get me started on the Great Betrayal of military personnel with the promise of free lifetime medical care, then reneging. And that's atop a drastic truncation in access to PX/BX facilities and their vital commissaries. Retirement planning for ex-service personnel was predicated on exactly such access. What used to be conveniently nearby is now hours away for many.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Well said John.

[Aurelius]

In my opinion- people don't care whether you show them numbers or coffins or corpses. They wont care unless it is connected to them or their family. I remember going to some practical courses in a police station in Novi Sad. There was a black marble plaque with names and dates of police officers killed on duty. Not one of my colleagues stopped and looked at their names. Life is cheap and no one will care whether you died in a car crash, in Iraq or Ukraine.

[whitehot78]

Seems to me that many here have no idea, none, how adroit the Pentagon and various administrations are when it comes to hiding the grisly truth of America's wars from both the American people and the world at large. What I've provided here barely scratches the surface.

 

Pentagon is hiding the dead

 

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-pentagon-is-hiding-the-dead-862a7b45ce57

 

American Military Casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan Now Exceed 500,000 (Part 1 of 2)

PENTAGON FUDGES THE NUMBERS TO PLACATE AMERICAN PUBLIC

Friday 18 June 2010, by Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain

http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article15450

 

KabulPress.org is a respected, much cited organization. The editor himself was arrested and interrogated for nine hours by Afghan Secret Police in 2007.

 

http://www.kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article4050

 

Former Air Force Captain Joyce Riley, a nurse who has tirelessly advocated for decades (I first came across her ~1997) on behalf of the grotesquely abused by the USG Gulf War veterans and herself a survivor of Gulf War Syndrome, despite having never been in-theater, merely nursed the medevaced troops, has put together a stunning array of evidence of the true cost to our warriors of wars and weapon tests alike. This is but a tiny part of a very substantial site, just a list of articles.

 

When it comes to properly accounting for the true human costs of America's wars to Americans, I have zero trust in the Pentagon, based on decades of deliberate misinterpretation, deception, definition alteration, and outright knowing whoppers of the cruelest sort. If possible, the situation's even worse when it comes to everyone else. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

I almost forgot, thanks for the links

[AttorneyAtWar]

I think my example got taken a little too literally, I don't want any of this to happen per se, I only meant that something drastic like that would bring people "around" to the facts of the war.

 

Maybe.

[Aurelius]

Maybe they don't want to see it?

[DreDay]

In my opinion- people don't care whether you show them numbers or coffins or corpses. They wont care unless it is connected to them or their family. I remember going to some practical courses in a police station in Novi Sad. There was a black marble plaque with names and dates of police officers killed on duty. Not one of my colleagues stopped and looked at their names. Life is cheap and no one will care whether you died in a car crash, in Iraq or Ukraine.

 

That (IMHO of course) is only partially true. Your premise does not allow for the role of news outlets and social media (whether independent - a concept that I am very skeptical of at this point), or politicized. Realistically speaking, most recent unconventional conflicts had resulted in relatively scalable losses by the superior force. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Lebanon, etc... All the military losses by dominant powers in those conflicts were much smaller than those from car accidents (or even just DUI accidents alone) for those respected nations… yet one would not see things from such perspective when their TV screen or the computer monitor is filled with the reporting on the demise of these unfortunate servicemen.

 

Back on topic, more trust-worthy Russian opposition sources put the number of Russian Army KIA’s in Ukraine at no more than 500. That number is challenged by more centrist sources that estimate it to be no more 150 servicemen. Obviously, every human death is a tragedy; but, statistically speaking, these numbers are negligible for a nation of 145 million people… yet – look at the impact that such reports are stirring up…

[John Kettler]

A mere three hours ago, The Fiscal Times, in a truly remarkable piece written by Rob Garver, reported that a Russian newspaper, Delovaya Zhizn (Business Life), last week had published an article on military salaries, but buried within that reportage on such rather dull matters were what appear to be official counts of Russia's KIA and WIA in Ukraine! The few paragraphs below are the core of a much longer article, and in that article there are some caveats not reflected in what I've provided below. The newspaper broke the story on August 22, and by August 24, the article was gone from the paper's website. Fortunately, the original issue was archived. The excerpt is quite the read for those with an interest in the Ukraine War.

 

(Fair Use)

 

How Many Russian Soldiers Have Died in Ukraine? A Glimpse at the Bloody Toll

 

"Last week, the newspaper Delovaya Zhizn (Business Life) published a relatively dull-seeming piece about military salaries and how much the government anticipated paying for them in the coming year. It read like an unremarkable report on government spending until the end, when under a subhead, “Payment soldiers participating in military actions in Ukraine in 2014 – 2015” it revealed what appears to be the human toll on Russian troops engaged in Ukraine.

 

 “[T]he Russian government made an important decision on monetary compensation to servicemen who took part in the hostilities in the east of Ukraine,” it began.

 

The report went on to detail payments made to the families of soldiers killed in action there (3 million rubles, or about $45,300 at today’s exchange rate) and for those disabled (1.5 million rubles, or about $22,650.)

 

The fact that the Kremlin appears to be compensating the families of Russian soldiers injured in eastern Ukraine was surprising on its own. But the report’s final line, laying out the magnitude of those payments, was the real shocker. By the end of February of this year, it reported, the Russian government had paid out death benefits to the families of more than 2,000 Russian soldiers, and disability benefits to more than 3,200."

 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited August 28, 2015 by John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I never got why the death gratuity was more than the injury one.  Dude's dead.  That's sad.  But it's over for him.  If Putin used you and gave you back broken occupying the Donbass, seems like you need the cash more than the stiff.

[Battlefront.com]

Back on topic, more trust-worthy Russian opposition sources put the number of Russian Army KIA’s in Ukraine at no more than 500. That number is challenged by more centrist sources that estimate it to be no more 150 servicemen. Obviously, every human death is a tragedy; but, statistically speaking, these numbers are negligible for a nation of 145 million people… yet – look at the impact that such reports are stirring up…

The major problem is that there are three possible definitions of "Russian military deaths". There is the one that covers only Russian soldiers fighting in organized Russian military units under the direct command of Russian military chain of command. The second includes active Russian military members who, while "on vacation", fought with the DPR/LPR militias. The third includes Russian citizens, be they active or not, serving with the DPR/LPR. Some sources do try to differentiate, others deliberately do not.

And then we get into the whole problem of sources mixing up terms for casualties. Some view the word as meaning killed, some view it as meaning killed and wounded. But often they themselves don't know. One has to compare different sources and that itself is pretty tough since many of them derive from a common source. Casualty should mean only one thing... killed AND wounded combined.

Then add to it the usual, understandable, fog of war reporting mistakes that are made. Partly because of terminology, party because of accidental information errors.

In any case, the number I see most often attributed to Russian service personnel deaths is 500. I presume that includes "vacationers" as well as those who were killed while operating with organized Russian units (especially Aug/Sept 2015 and Jan/Feb). However, I also presume it does not include other Russians killed in action.

Today Borodai announced a new organization to support the well being of Russian citizens who fought in Donbas. He put the figure at between 30,000 and 50,000. This is a number that is quite believable considering that at any one time there are about that many militia fighters active. Rotations of Russian fighters is totally chaotic and ranges from a few weeks to many months, one time and multiple times.

If we accept the lower number (30,000) as that of the number of Russian citizens who have fought in Donbas for more than a day, a 10% casualty rate would be 3000. Even if one said 5% that would be 1500. Of that number some proportion would be killed. It's tough to say what the ratio is in Donbas amongst the militias, but 1 in 6 is generally a good rule of thumb from what I've seen. Which means a 10% casualty rate of 30k means roughly 600 KIA and 5% casualty rate is 300 KIA.

Of course I have no idea what the real casualty number is. A wild guess is that for every one organized Russian unit loss there are 2 vacationers and 3-5 adventurers. So if we go with a 500 total Russian military casualty count, that would be roughly 1000 vacationeers and 1500-2500 adventurers. The total comes to about 2000-3000 Russian citizens. I have NO IDEA if this is accurate, but the number "feels about right".

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Related, today the SBU released several bits of information. Here is what they currently estimate for enemy forces:

Russian forces, as defined by the SBU, are pegged at about 9100. The number has been significantly lower in past months since Debaltseve, but much higher during the Aug/Sept Russian counter offensive.

The 9100 figure includes the "shadow" command and specialized support units, not just combat units. The shadow command probably amounts to several hundred (less than 1000 for sure). The support units probably represent the bulk of the number.

Related, InfoNapalm released this today. It's a comprehensive list of Russian units involved in fighting inside Ukraine, complete with dates, their purpose, and the evidence for their inclusion in their database:

https://en.informnapalm.org/professional-russian-army-in-ukraine-database-and-visualisation/

Steve