Not 300 thousand, but 150. As Zaluzhny explained the number of fallen Russians

Publicist Serhiy Gromenko draws attention to one place in Valery Zaluzhny's column in The Economist, which is about the loss of Russians. He emphasizes that it is necessary to distinguish between the "loss" of the enemy and his "dead". How many enemies were killed in the war? In addition to the essay, Zaluzhny gave an "economist" a short accompanying interview.

Most of the content is about positional deadlock and the need for technologies - in other words it is translated into an essay, so I did not translate the whole text. Instead, I stopped on one important question - about the dead enemies. "The course of the counter -offensive has undermined the expectation of the event that Ukraine would be able to use it to demonstrate that the war could not be won, and thus confuse Vladimir Putin's calculations, forcing the Russian president to negotiate.

He also denied the assumption of General Zaluzhny that he could stop Russia, Squeezing her troops. "It was my mistake. Russia has lost at least 150,000 people dead. In any other country, such losses would stop the war. "But not in Russia, where life is cheap and where Putin focuses on the first and second world wars in which Russia has lost tens of millions of people. " … "Let's be honest, it is a feudal state where the cheapest resource is human life. And for us . . .

The most precious thing we have is our people," he says. So far, General Zaluzhny says, he is lacking soldiers. But the longer the war lasts, the more difficult it will be to keep them. "We need to look for this way out, we need to find this powder, quickly master it and use it for the earliest victory. Because sooner or later we will face the fact that we just won't have enough people to fight. " So, the head confirmed what analysts say and what bloggers do not want to listen to.

When the General Staff publishes daily reports, it indicates the number of "losses" of enemies, not "dead" because they are different things. In the category of losses (probably, it is irreversible, not sanitary, because it is also different) includes both killed and difficult to get wounded, and captives, and disappeared. Thus, 300,000 are losses, not the dead, and the dead are half. It is a dofig. It is ten more than 10 years of Afghan war (not counting, of course, the Afghans themselves).

Moreover, the ratio of the dead and wounded 1: 1 is the bottom of the bottom by any measure, it is a sentence to the entire military car of the Russian Federation. But this was not enough. And not least because mobilized and contractors are unlikely to be more than half. The rest are mercenaries, Zeky, and especially terrible, Ukrainians from the long -occupied territories.

But the level of internal hatred in Russian society, the contempt for lower and crawling before the higher ones is so high that no losses affect it. We simply will not be able to break them all if we exchanges less than 1: 5. So our hope is new technologies, because by eliminating Russia's technical advantage, we will protect our meat advantage. Therefore, in the head of the Essay 4 out of 5 points were about equipment. However, there is another detail in the text.

The commentator writes: "In the First World War, the rebellions intervened before the technologies were able to change the situation. The four empires broke up and the revolution broke out in Russia. " I will add from myself that Germany had a complete catastrophe, although there was no hostile soldier on its territory, on the contrary, Paris was under fire. Therefore, in the long run, I remain optimistic in the long run.