It’s also the only source that publishes. Oryx documentation indicates direct photographic evidence for 50% of the numbers listed here and when you consider that most Russian losses are in areas not easily photographed by civilians this is a strong indicator these reports have some basis in reality. That said, I agree these numbers should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt.
I think between Oryx, various leaks, etc. I’ve come to assume that UA General Staff numbers are probably optimistic (from Ukraine’s PoV) but plausible.
Considering the fog of war, and Russia’s own obfuscation from their own people, plus institutional obfuscation¹, the UA General Staff numbers are a good indicator as they are repeatable. It’s like if your bathroom scale is always 10% high, you can still use it to track your latest fad diet as long as it’s repeatable.
It’s also the only source that publishes. Oryx documentation indicates direct photographic evidence for 50% of the numbers listed here and when you consider that most Russian losses are in areas not easily photographed by civilians this is a strong indicator these reports have some basis in reality. That said, I agree these numbers should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt.
I think between Oryx, various leaks, etc. I’ve come to assume that UA General Staff numbers are probably optimistic (from Ukraine’s PoV) but plausible.
Considering the fog of war, and Russia’s own obfuscation from their own people, plus institutional obfuscation¹, the UA General Staff numbers are a good indicator as they are repeatable. It’s like if your bathroom scale is always 10% high, you can still use it to track your latest fad diet as long as it’s repeatable.