This is VERY wrong. Almost all estimates go for at least 3x higher Russian casualties than
Ukrainian. Russia has been attacking for 4+ years just throwing bodies at the problem with Ukrainians defending with technology. Where do these estimates even come from? Makes me question the validity of the information on this site
That is the Western media narrative anyway. The casualty rate for the current mode of offensive warfare with small infantry teams infiltrating under cover of darkness (e.g. Ukraine for the latter part of the 2023 counteroffensive, Russia in its more recent offensive in the Donbas) has been extremely high on both sides. But I'm pretty sure Russia had a favorable kill ratio during their 2022 summer offensive in the Donbas where they just pummeled fortifications with standoff weapons like the Buratino, and many of Ukraine's most experienced troops died in that offensive.
Anyway, the Western stereotype of "Russian human wave attacks" is mostly wrong. Even when Russia is just throwing bodies into the fray (like the convict troops in Bakhmut), those can't really be described as "human wave" tactics (again, they're small infantry teams infiltrating at night). And Ukraine has thrown lots of hastily mobilized cannon fodder at the front as well: look for videos of protesting TDF soldiers and their relatives on Telegram if you don't believe me.
Numbers range from 323 k to 2 mio. total war deaths since 2022.
Hugh leap.
But the numbers for Ukraine and russian federation seem to be swapped: Ukraine does not even have 600 k soldiers, so probably in 10-20 or so years cannot have these many loses without front collapse.
You said human waves, not the person you are replying to. Russian did throw bodies at the problem and has shown callous disregard for the welfare of its soldiers.
I feel like you're not really replying to the comment above.
What are you talking about? Mediazone already has 230k confirmed! russian deaths with names. Current confirmed rate of ~30k/month casualities for Russia couldn't be sustainable for much smaller population of Ukraine if they were trading 1:1 or even worse
With Western media narrative and both sides it's clear he is completely lost in propaganda. Every single method of analyzing the numbers points to well about 1 million casualties to be most realistic guess.
Even the Russian MOD own numbers for recruitment and numbers stationed in Ukraine shows that there is at least ~1.1 million personal missing.
Grumble about the graphics choices: dark-grey-on-black-with-other-dark-colors is a terrible color scheme, that renders the borders nearly invisible.
There's a reason print maps have a standard set of colors, with very light blue for oceans, white for land backgrounds, and a variety of dark colors for features. The "modern white-on-black web aesthetic" only really works for text- and figure-heavy pages, where you must then use very light colors (white, yellow, light orange, light green) for features/lines.
Cool visuals, as with everything like this where the creator probably just churned open datasets through LLMs there are many inaccuracies particularly around borders.
An interesting effort though, and at least this one has a decent page about sourcing.
Yes, definitely. Claude and other models might produce minor differences in design outputs, but overall they apply similar principles. This has been harped on in many threads over the past several months.
I recently figured that Spain went on a war for 700 years, just to carry on in the Arauco war for another 300 years, thus, literally being at war for 1000 years.
I guess the (war?) elephant in the room is that written history as something that attempts to record a somewht balanced, comprehensive account of an event is a modern, western, anomaly.
Wikipedia has a known bias of having mostly the historical events present that western world has written down. This map seems almost balanced, how come it used a better or at least perhaps fairer datasource?
There are a lot of very old written histories recording various battles. For example, the Spring and Autumn Annals have a somewhat detailed account of the Battle of Chengpu and its aftermath: https://ctext.org/chun-qiu-zuo-zhuan/xi-gong#comm18160 This map actually briefly flashes a red dot at 632 BC, but since it's not part of any named war, you could easily miss it.
The areas where you see fewer wars don't necessarily lack written historical records, it might just be that nobody bothered to translate those records into a machine-readable format yet. (I'd guess this map is based on Wikidata.)
Interestingly, this website reliably crashes my firefox on linux while consuming 55GB of memory.
Claude's TLDR of what's causing the problem (may or may not be accurate): "That animation loop is almost certainly leaking memory: each time-step it draws new border geometry (GeoJSON/vector shapes) but doesn't free the old frames, so RAM climbs without bound. When you interact — especially auto-playing the timeline — the tab grows until it swallows all 62 GB of RAM + swap and the kernel kills it."
Very interesting and watchable. Do you differentiate between wars and "conflicts"? There's so many of the latter and everyone seems to avoid the term "war".
> Also, the 19th century was far more conflict-prone than I thought.
Let me guess, you're American? For the US, once Northern America was settled, the US established and the conflicts with Natives and the Brits resolved, all you had was the Civil War...
But here in Europe, up until 1945, it was constant warfare. And that not just the large wars between entire countries that some czars or emperors drew up, there were also countless unnamed skirmishes and dealings between all the countless fiefdoms.
>For the US, once Northern America was settled, the US established and the conflicts with Natives and the Brits resolved, all you had was the Civil War...
Out of that list, the utter majority is some sort of fights involving Native Americans or some island "expeditions" not involving Northern American territory.
>once Northern America was settled, the US established and the conflicts with Natives and the Brits resolved, all you had was the Civil War
As that list shows, that's not how things happened. There were major wars with the Native Americans all throughout the 19th century.
If for some reason you only want to include wars with Europeans and European colonies (I have no idea why you would though), the Mexican-American war, and the Spanish-American war are the big ones you missed. The War of 1812 was also another big war after the US had previously resolved our conflict with the British.
>once Northern America was settled
You can't even begin to say "once North America was settled" until the end of the 19th century.
> Estimates: 600,000+ Ukrainian military deaths; 100,000+ Russian deaths; 30,000-40,000 civilian deaths.
This is VERY wrong. Almost all estimates go for at least 3x higher Russian casualties than Ukrainian. Russia has been attacking for 4+ years just throwing bodies at the problem with Ukrainians defending with technology. Where do these estimates even come from? Makes me question the validity of the information on this site
Anyway, the Western stereotype of "Russian human wave attacks" is mostly wrong. Even when Russia is just throwing bodies into the fray (like the convict troops in Bakhmut), those can't really be described as "human wave" tactics (again, they're small infantry teams infiltrating at night). And Ukraine has thrown lots of hastily mobilized cannon fodder at the front as well: look for videos of protesting TDF soldiers and their relatives on Telegram if you don't believe me.
But the numbers for Ukraine and russian federation seem to be swapped: Ukraine does not even have 600 k soldiers, so probably in 10-20 or so years cannot have these many loses without front collapse.
I feel like you're not really replying to the comment above.
I can't find numbers or more information about this because Google has stopped returning results that match my queries.
Even the Russian MOD own numbers for recruitment and numbers stationed in Ukraine shows that there is at least ~1.1 million personal missing.
There's a reason print maps have a standard set of colors, with very light blue for oceans, white for land backgrounds, and a variety of dark colors for features. The "modern white-on-black web aesthetic" only really works for text- and figure-heavy pages, where you must then use very light colors (white, yellow, light orange, light green) for features/lines.
An interesting effort though, and at least this one has a decent page about sourcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_War
But to be fair, this is really cool.
The areas where you see fewer wars don't necessarily lack written historical records, it might just be that nobody bothered to translate those records into a machine-readable format yet. (I'd guess this map is based on Wikidata.)
Claude's TLDR of what's causing the problem (may or may not be accurate): "That animation loop is almost certainly leaking memory: each time-step it draws new border geometry (GeoJSON/vector shapes) but doesn't free the old frames, so RAM climbs without bound. When you interact — especially auto-playing the timeline — the tab grows until it swallows all 62 GB of RAM + swap and the kernel kills it."
Curiously, the website works just fine in chrome on android.
Blink monopoly strikes again, I guess.
Robinson Projection would be much more accurate.
Imagine foreign policy being distorted by the Mercator projection.
Let me guess, you're American? For the US, once Northern America was settled, the US established and the conflicts with Natives and the Brits resolved, all you had was the Civil War...
But here in Europe, up until 1945, it was constant warfare. And that not just the large wars between entire countries that some czars or emperors drew up, there were also countless unnamed skirmishes and dealings between all the countless fiefdoms.
No part of that statement is accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
As that list shows, that's not how things happened. There were major wars with the Native Americans all throughout the 19th century.
If for some reason you only want to include wars with Europeans and European colonies (I have no idea why you would though), the Mexican-American war, and the Spanish-American war are the big ones you missed. The War of 1812 was also another big war after the US had previously resolved our conflict with the British.
>once Northern America was settled
You can't even begin to say "once North America was settled" until the end of the 19th century.