comment: >
  
  You sold me queer giraffes
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.