• Kornblumenratte@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Where is the contradiction? They were light infantry sent to capture a well defended fortress, aka sacrificial lambs being slaughtered to cater to the unreasonable demand to capture Bakhmut. The survivors — I don’t know where you got the idea of “all” from — are going to go back. Whether they will wreck havoc remains to be seen.

    What is the intent of your post, by the way? Genuine confusion or trolling?

    Edit: Ok – two murders and one (habitually) disorderly conduct already reported.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/22/alcohol-and-prostitutes-wagner-convicts-pardoned-by-putin-return-to-terrorise-home-towns

    • vegetarian_pacemaker@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My statement comes from months of what was being told in the news. In terms of estimates it was said that around 40k Russian prisioners were recruited. UK intelligence estimated 20k of them died in the first few months. There was also the famous rule of three cited where for every person killed, you can count roughly 3 people injured. With those figures, most prisoners are wounded or killed. The kind of battles were said to be brutal, my assumption was the wounded would not return to a normal life. My confusion stems for an honest attempt to understand the truth. The way I see it, either the killed and injured are not exaggerated and then we could say a small percentage of the prisioners are potentially problems or the numbers are not what they say they are and the problem of returning prisioners would be as worrisome as the article implies. Please excuse me when I said they are “all” going back. I failed to convey the gist of the contradiction correctly.