this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2026
211 points (73.8% liked)
Memes
55894 readers
835 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We can argue about it all day long.
To me it's very clear there is a difference.
And the ukrainian civilians indeed suffered the most.
But it's also clear it's mostly the ethnic Russians in the east and south.
The Banderites made as much casualties there since the coup in 2014 as there are now from the whole conflict after 2022.
Which is not surprising when their aim was to ethnically cleanse the population.
As an objective witness looking at the facts all of this is obvious.
War sucks and I feel sorry for civilian casualties from whatever side but I have been following this since long before 2014 so I am confident in my conclusions.
Every side will try to convince you that all casualties of the other side were on purpose and we all short go and help the country.
Are you kidding? It's not even close. And on top of that entire cities were destroyed, forcing citizens to leave.
I am not every side since I am neutral.
Unlike Shitipedia, not even looking at that.
And duh cities get destroyed, yes it's war.
The fighting and most of the damage is done in the east.
ukros don't care about that since they hate them and by far most of those citizens have fled to Russia.
Can someone really be considered neutral if they believe that one side in the war tells the truth and the other side only lies?
Provide your unbiased source. But to me, it's obvious that the casualties since 2022 far exceed those from the 8 years of conflict between 2014 and 2022.
That's not true either. The central regions are targeted by strikes on an daily basis.
That is like the typical reaction from one side when a neutral referee gives a penalty to the other team.
At some points he has to make decisions which are in favor of one or the other, that's why he's there.
Will do when I have time.
While there can be hits anywhere, even daily, there is no comparing these strikes on specific targets to the complete villages and some cities that are totally in ruins.
There is the frontline and that is where most of the damage is done.
This is how I understand what you are saying:
You either have it or not, otherwise your so-called facts based on nothing. To me thinking that the conflict after the coup in 2014 caused more casualties than a full-blow war is absolutely ridiculous.
This is correct. But you previously said that casualties caused by Russia are anecdotal, so I assumed you mean that outside of the west people don't feel the war.
You understand wrong. It's not what I 'think', it's the empirical overwhelming evidence that forms an objective opinion, even if you don't like it.
The numbers after 2022 change over time since it's still going on.
Obviously the pre-2022 was higher for a considerable time.
Maybe now the post-2022 have indeed caught up and you are right.
The reported casualties make no distinction between what side they are from and even then they vary depending on who reports them.
This is correct. But you previously said that casualties caused by Russia are anecdotal, so I assumed you mean that outside of the west people don’t feel the war.
You probably ment outside of the ~~west~~ east people don’t feel the war.
I never said that, again the destruction and casualties are obviously much higher closer to the frontline.
That is in the east.
And of course they would feel it in the west.
But for the 3rd time, it's in no way comparable.
And civilian casualty numbers are very limited considering the firepower used.
I don't see 'refugees' here going back on holidays to their homes (if it's even there), unlike the ones from the west.
Even if you combine the casualties from both sides before 2022, they still wouldn't be even a fraction of what has happened during the full-scale war, no matter which source you choose to use. I'm not even sure why you decided to mention this.
Yeah, I misspoke about the east. But define "very limited". For example, last night, Russia hit about 20 houses. I'm not saying it was deliberate, but did you somehow calculated that fraction of casualties/firepower caused by Ukraine is higher than Russia's? Or do you just think that all casualties caused by Russia, like the attack on Okhmatdyt children's hospital, were accidental, while all attacks done by Ukraine, like the college one, were intentional?
It's not a fraction.
15850 in total after 2022.
5600 before in Donbass alone.
An attack on a children’s hospital would be caricaturally evil.
And only 2 deaths? Sounds like that could be from air defense misfiring or downing something on the way to somewhere else.
Confirms my limited collateral dammage.
I don't believe for one minute that would be the target.
That hospital could be gone if they wanted it, and the rest of Kiev with it.
It is nothing like the almost daily attacks on markets in Donetsk with countless more civilians killed.
There is a pattern, so no I don't believe anything the ukros claim.
Like the ridiculous story where they blamed Russians for targeting the nuclear plant in Zaporizia.
As if they would bomb that while it was in their possession.
Okay, maybe I rushed with "any source". 15850 are UN numbers, but 5600 comes from TASS. If look at UN numbers it's 3404. In the graph you can also see that most casualties happened in first 2 years, after that it was a cold conflict.
Okay, what about the Hroza strike, which killed 52 people? Or the recent attack on Kyiv after the Ukrainian college strike, when a house was struck by a drone twice - doesn't that sound like an air defense system malfunctioned?
So do Ukraine could kill civilians more actively. Surely not on the same scale as Russia, but still. This doesn't happen because it isn't practical, both in terms of media and money.
So do Ukrainian-controlled towns have also been hit by Russian attacks, including markets and shops.
And I agree with you here. I don't think it was Russia. But it's not like only Ukraine tells ridiculous stories. For example, the Kakhovka Dam was blown up by an internal explosion while it was under Russian control, which is suspicious, to say the least.
It's hard to get any news here that's not from western biased sources since everything gets censored and blocked to 'keep us safe from Russian propaganda'.
So it's difficult to look into all these specific events.
But a quick look shows it was a funeral for Andriy Kozyr, a nazi POS.
Obviously there would be plenty other nazis. Not just some normal funeral.
While it's unfortunate there are civilian casualties (for which we only have accounts from one side) it can not be sold as purely hitting civilians.
And the Kakhovka Dam was indeed held by Russia.
And you believe it's not a ridiculous story that they would blow it up knowing the north (UA) ground is higher and the lower south side where the Russian troop are would flood?
It also cut off water supply for Crimea and endangered the cooling of the Zaporizia nuclear power plant.
So logic would suggest this is as much a BS as them targeting that same plant under their control.
Russia claimed that he was a neo-Nazi, but I don't see any evidence for that. It's not like Russian media aren't biased. That's how it always works: both sides try to deflect casualties they caused and present casualties caused by the other side as war crimes.
Armies sometimes take actions that damage their own side if the broader military benefit is worth it. In this case dam's destruction disrupted Ukrainian plans for a Dnipro crossing operation. It was at the time of Ukranian counter-offense. Since it was an inner explosion, I have a hard time believing that Ukrainian saboteurs came to the dam unnoticed and detonated. This was not like planting a small bomb near a road. Destroying a huge hydroelectric dam is not easy. And Russia didn't catch anyone or present any evidence of that afterwards.
No, just a guy who is into Norse mythology again, the valknut tattoo is harmless as the wolfangel, black suns,etc... that show up like clockwork up in photo's from these guys.
I forgot the 'no nazis in ukraine' mantra.
That's some serious mental gymnastics.
Did you miss my comments about the awful consequences?
There were zero advantages to Russia.
That great announced summer offensive had no chance to begin with.
The Russians had retreated strategically in Kherson (like in the east) and made defensive preparations.
It was the time wen they changed to attrition war.
Anything ukraine sent over the Dnipro got blown up, at best some poor suckers made it long enough to make a propaganda video and plant a flag. After which they got killed anyway.
The Russians couldn't be happier having a turkey shoot from a safe distance anytime they sent another human wave in that meatgrinder. And it didn't have to be saboteurs, a Stormshadow missile or whatever the UK/US gave to their proxy army would do the trick.
I mean do you have a proof for that specific guy?
The mentioned consequences for Russia weren't significant. No power plant exploded and Crimea had already lived with the canal mostly blocked from 2014 to 2022. There was no rocket, it's confirmed. No one else could blow it up, that's the problem.
A guy with a nazi tattoo is a nazi.
Not that it mattered to this matter of the strike, the point is that he was military and plenty of military there.
The inhabitants said they were far enough from the front and never even heard sounds of bombs.
Russia never targeted that unimportant tiny place.
Only when they had high ranking military in one place.
They aren't going to waste a 4$ million Iskander on a few peasants.
Just because there wasn't a nuclear disaster doesn't mean it wasn't immensely dangerous and criminal.
Even the biased IAEA said so.
Yup, no country besides Russia can blow stuff up from a distance.
Especially since the entire NATO and other vassals are giving them everything they can.
Russia probably blew up their Crimean bridge too.
I'm sure the ukrainians can confirm that, and who wouldn't believe them?
Sure. But do you have any photo such tattoo on him? Also UN reports that the strike killed 59 civilians and no legitimate military target around.
So why would Ukraine waste money on their rockets to kill civilians?..
I mean, yeah, you cannot explode things from a distance without something like a rocket or a drone.