comment: >
  
  Oh shit! They better get out of Donetsk! It doesn’t sound like it’s safe to be there!
context: You know its bad when russia admits 63 deaths. >
  
  Confirmed are around 600... Yeah, Russia is quite predictable in inflating/ deflating X10... >
  
  Confirmed is a strong word. It is only some Russian milbloggers who claim this number.
  Other Russian milblogger estimates are lower, but still in hundreds of dead and more wounded.
  Ukrainian side as far as I know published no estimate. >
  
  From the article itself:
  
  Ukraine had alleged that 400 Russians had been killed, a number dismissed as an exaggeration by Russian bloggers. >
  
  How could I miss this... >
  
  That doesn't exactly confirm it either keep in mind. 
  The Ukrainians are going to high-ball the number after all. >
  
  If you have seen the photos of the site you know there is no way in hell less than 300 people died. >
  
  I’ve seen the pictures. It’s a huge building that was flattened into a big pile of rubble and I’m sure everyone inside died. But how do you know how many people were inside? Are there other photos where you see 300 dead Russians? >
  
  One would hope that before sending a decisive killing strike on a massive building, one would have fairly confident intelligence about that building. Such as military strategic importance, estimated personnel and materiel contents, active use, and whether or not it's a school for gifted children or perhaps a lovely wedding hall. >
  
  
  If you have seen the photos of the site you know there is no way in hell less than 300 people died.
  
  How do you glean that from the pictures? >
  
  Life Pro Tip: don’t sleep in an ammunitions cache. 
  I have slept on a mattress stacked on crates of 40mm grenades. It was unsettling then, though low threat at the location. This is why. >
  
  Army regulations forbid storing munitions within 500 yards from the barracks. This building is in the wrong place.
  -Captain America >
  
  That general idea has been a thing for almost as long as gunpowder has been a major factor on the battlefield. >
  
  which really goes to show how dire things must be on the russian side. they either didn't have anywhere else to put them, or were ordered to do so by short-sighted leadership >
  
  The Russians being incompetent, disorganized and having completely disregard for the lives of their own people has been pretty dire for the whole campaign, if not the last 500 years. >
  
  The story of the Russian fleet sent to attack Japan in ~1904 is something that wouldn't be believed if a movie was made out of it. It's like an episode of The Office. Complete ineptitude. >
  
  Yes, the Second Pacific Squadron that got slaughtered at the Battle of Tsushima. Their incompetence is exemplified by the repair shop Kamchatka almost starting a war with the British Empire because it started shooting at civilian fishing boats in British waters...because it claimed they were Japanese torpedo boats. >
  
  Russian General: Master Putin, we had 500 soldiers in barracks at the time, sir.
  Putin: How many bodies did we find?
  Russian General: 63, my master.
  Putin: So 63 were killed in the attack, the rest were deserters, have them killed on sight and get their names so we can conscript their families. >
  
  It's also equally likely that the deaths are under reported so the field commanders can pocket the ghost soldiers' pay. >
  
  Wait...how is Russia military paid nowadays? Unless they are handing out physical cash/gold how exactly would a commander divert their pay without being immediately found out? >
  
  Apparently Russian commanding officers are the ones who handle pay getting to their soldiers, its not a centralized system like the US or other countries. Thats how all the corruption in the military you hear about happens. The officers have full control of the money they are supposed to be spending on the military. >
  
  Wasn't that how the Roman legions fell apart and had military coups/civil wars, since the soldiers were only ever (mostly) loyal to their commanders? >
  
  Let's ask the Spaniard. >
  
  You sold me queer giraffes >
  
  Where is that from? >
  
  Gladiator, if I'm not mistaken >
  
  So actual number probably around 250. About half what Ukraine says and 4x what Russia says! >
  
  It’s, like, reverse Herodotus. >
  
  630 soldiers in one strike? Holy Shit! >
  
  A lot of pro-Russian Telegram messages mentioned that there was ammunition stored in the school that the Russian soldiers were sleeping in. Which would explain why the entire place was leveled on a scale that is disproportionate to the GMLRS's explosive yield. >
  
  
  there was ammunition stored in the school that the Russian soldiers were sleeping in.
  
  Russia claiming war crimes in 3.. 2... >
  
  They already declared that attacking military targets in times of war was an "act of terrorism" (when done by Ukrainians). >
  
  But they haven't weighed in on Ukrainians bombing schools yet.  
  Edit*: >there was ammunition stored in the school that the Russian soldiers were sleeping in. >
  
  A building full of soldiers and ammunition sounds like a military target. >
  
  It sure is, but the optic is "you just bombed a school!"  
  The US faced severe backlash in afganistan more than once for that.  
  Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti Ukraine by any means, I'm pointing out the potential propaganda and am surprised Russia hasn't used it. >
  
  The building was not functioning as a school >
  
  And what were 63 Russian soldiers doing inside another country?
  Maybe that's the problem, eh? >
  
  Flying through the air, with the greatest of ease. >
  
  The daring Z grunt on the drone IEDs! >
  
  So apparently they store ammo and personnel in same small building. Also many vehicles was parked nearby. Play stupid games, win nothing. >
  
  
  ammo and personnel in same small building
  
  The sign said "expendables' storage". >
  
  Lets be honest here, Russia is probably more upset about losing all that ammo.
  To Russia, lives are cheap, ammo is not. >
  
  I, too, played the original Call of Duty >
  
  I saw the pics.  63 is laughably low. >
  
  Do you have link to pics? :) >
  
  I'm not 100% certain but this might need to be marked NSFL.
  Edit: lol, being downvoted for my uncertainty cause everyone just sees concrete and no "bodies" must be looking on phone. In big explosions you don't get bodies, you get pieces and some stuff on there look very much like pieces of human remains. But the quality isn't there enough, so that's why I said I'm not 100%. >
  
  Am I blind or are there 0 bodies in the video? Don't see why NSFL would be appropriate for rubble >
  
  Looks to be a body at the 0:03 mark laying amongst the rubble. Hard to tell on this video though.