It has come out in the last week that the MiGs were not transferred to Ukraine because of politics with China. There may be similar diplomatic issues with giving the Ukrainians longer range weapons. I smell something like that going on here.
NATO countries have reason to constantly counter the narrative because they have Russian allies in their countries who will amplify Russian claims. Constantly shouting down those claims keeps the Quisling faction at bay.
Hard to say. It might be, it might not be. The Russian way of fighting has gotten a lot of their people killed for no good reason. Russian field medicine is still primitive which has contributed to a lot of dead. Russian protective equipment is non-existient or a joke.
On the other side the Ukrainians have been good about preserving their forces and only putting people in harms way when necessary, their protective equipment is on par with the best in the world, their field medicine is on par with NATO. Ukrainian losses were somewhat high when the Russians were blanketing their positions with artillery every day, but for most of the rest of the war Ukrainians have not been in positions where they were losing a lot of troops every day.
Since the Ukrainians have been tight lipped about their losses, nailing down any kind of exact number is impossible, but I think it's certain their losses are a fraction of Russian losses. It may not be 1/10 Russian losses, but it could be 1/5.
One data point we can compare is confirmed equipment losses. These are certainly only a fraction of actual equipment losses and it's possible that there are more pictures of Russian than Ukrainian losses, but I would think if the Russians have confirmation of Ukrainian losses they would want to publish them to help tilt the narrative their way. Now that the Russians are on the defensive they have fewer opportunities, but they do have drone footage.
Overall Russian equipment losses have been much higher than Ukrainian as far as we can tell. They started with more equipment, but what is showing up on the battlefield today is an indication of an army with a serious equipment problem. Russian vehicle designs have poorer survivablility than western designs. As the Ukrainians have begun replacing their ex-Soviet equipment with western equipment they have probably had better survival rates when vehicles are hit. The Ukrainians have also been more careful not to expose their vehicles to enemy fire as much as the Russians which has also contributed to lower losses.
I think a 1/10 loss rate is possible, but it may not be that big a ratio. We probably won't know until after the war when the Ukrainians admit their true losses.
