Do Russians care about casualties?

[Bad Thoughts]

Like many, I am encouraged by apparent victories by Ukraine's military and its people. However, I also feel that the casualties that are being inflected against Russian invaders won't matter to Putin or to the officials in government.

For centuries, Russian governments have treated its soldiers and its people as expendable in conflicts. The high casualties in the Napoleonic wars, WWI and WW2 were at least in part reflections of how Russia/USSR fought, exposing people rather than evacuating them, forcing soldiers on the offensive with threats to their lives.

Even outside of war, this indifference prevailed. Russian bureaucrats believed that industrialization would cause millions of deaths, especially because of the controls that would need to be put on the peasantry, well before the revolution--well before the Holodomor.

Maybe things have changed with consumerism? Maybe not.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

1. Of course not, Putin/Stalin will butcher his own as easily as civilians, acceptable losses

Russia does not conduct sanitary wars like the west where we try to limit collateral damage.

All go into the meatgrinder of the great patriotic war.

[Chainfire]

2. It is understood that everything, including your own soldier's lives, are expendable commodities

in wartime. The Russians will sacrifice as many troops as necessary to meet their goals. The Russians were infamous for sacrificing huge numbers of soldiers in suicide attacks during WWII. They cleared minefields by marching troops through them...They basically floated the Germans out of Russia on a Soviet sea of blood.

C'est la guerre

[gladium et scutum]

5. Your statement is not quite accurate

"They cleared minefields by marching troops through them." The intent was not to clear the minefield.
After the Germans surrendered, Ike asked Marshall Zhukov about attacking across minefields that had not been cleared. Zhukov said something to the extent. Yes, they would attack across an uncleared mine field. The Germans would sow heavy minefields, they would put less soldiers and machineguns behind the field. If the Germans discovered an attempt to clear the field, they would reinforce the troops behind the field. Attacking across an uncleared minefield had a better chance of success because the Germans were weaker behind the field. We were always going to have casualties when attacking the Germans.

Yes, the Russians were cold and callous, but in the case of attacking across a mine field, the practice had rational tactical reason.

[Chainfire]

9. The only belligerent of WWII that thought that that was acceptable practice was the Soviets.

Would you have thought that Zhukov would have said anything different? I can guarantee you that there are stories from the troops, that were known for their stoicism, that were involved in the minefield attacks, that considered it a really shitty deal. That is why there were often "special" Soviet Troops, behind the main lines, to kill anyone who thought it was a good idea to retreat.

To Zhukov, the ends justified the means. The minefield thing is not the only example of Soviets throwing their own soldier's lives away. Many times the only tactics that battlefield commanders understood was "Forward for the Motherland" no matter the cost. No exploring other ways to accomplish the same goal, not worrying at all about the cost of the men. I can't recall a single incident of a Soviet battlefield commander being sent to a penal battalion, or getting a Nagant in the neck, because he lost too many men in an attack...It was just the way the Soviet Army rolled.

To the Soviets, the equipment was more valuable and harder to replace than the men, so that is how they went about warfare. The casualty figures speak for themselves. Russians lost at the very least, twice as many men as the Germans. (perhaps as many as ten times) It is not because the Russians didn't have good tanks, artillery, and fielded infantry weapons equal to the Germans, it was a matter of being wasteful with men's lives for expediency, glory and promotion.

As far as rational tactical practice, "rational" takes on a whole new meaning in wartime.

[2naSalit]

3. Yes he does...

To the point that he's hauling mobile crematoriums into the field.

Appearances, you know. Besides, no mass graves, disappeared stay disappeared.

Yeah, he cares.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16401918

[PCIntern]

4. My question is: Does America?

Your points are very well founded. I only wish to “see you and raise you” one:

During the last few years we had witnessed An American federal administration, it’s flunkies, its appointed individuals, and many of its adherents be totally and completely uncaring about hundreds of thousands of casualties inflicted by the COVID-19 virus and its variants. Despite entreaties by physicians, public health officials, epidemiologists, and educated individuals many millions of Americans rejected the notion that casualties matter.

I don’t need to rehash the obvious, anyone here on this site knows exactly what I’m talking about.

[dalton99a]

6. +1

[Swede]

7. Putin will have to shut down social media if he wants the deaths to go unnoticed.

And if he does that, the population will know why.

[Johonny]

8. The Russian people, yes

Putin, fuck no.

[sarisataka]

10. Yes, they will not waste troops needlessly

however when trying to achieve an objective they accept "Omelets are not made without breaking eggs." and will not shy away from heavy casualties to succeed.

[Happy Hoosier]

11. We'll see how that plays with the Russian public in the age of social media. NT

[RussBLib]

12. Russia has a conscripted military starting age 18

mandatory service, except the children of the wealthy, of course.