FATALLY FLAWED ARTICLE: This is where journos start with an assumption and make the narrative fit. Saying Ukraine has FEW combat experienced troops is ludicrous. They interviewed one commander & 2 anonymous soldiers to spell DOOM for the AFU. Bullshit. washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/…
I want to put some focus on a fact about Ukrainian casualties. Out of my 20 man platoon 100% have been injured. 90% were small shrapnel & they were back in operation in 2 weeks BUT the Ukrainian medevac system puts them in hospital to heal then 2 weeks convalescent leave.
A slightly wounded guy is off the line for 2-4 weeks. The 2 who were really injured had partial deafness. As much as 50% have had 2+ small wounds over 3 mos. So Ukrainian wounded to killed ratio is high bc the Ukr med system takes them off line for minor injuries. A Good system
BUT THEY ALMOST ALL COME BACK. I believe the AFU are nearing 17,000 KIA but the number of REPORTED wounded was always going to be sky high, like 10-1, bc that’s the way AFU medical system works. But most noncritical injuries go back to the unit. & some skill gaps w/replacements.
The article seems to say that the AFU had been whittled down to a pool of unskilled replacements. That’s absolute rubbish! Almost 100% of that army now blooded combat veterans. Some new guys come & learn quickly.
What @washingtonpost left out is WHY Ukraine has this skills & manpower edge … Russians who are critically or even moderately wounded are abandoned OR THEY ALL DIE. 160,000 RU KIA is not a joke. But putting the AFU total KIA/WIA # next to Ru totals is looking for false “parity”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
