From the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 to December 2025, 14,999 Ukrainian civilians were killed and 40,601 injured, according to the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU).
1) The invasion started at least in 2014 (you could argue before that)
2) The UN estimate is considered on the low end because it looks into confirmed deaths while many civilians were killed in cities that became occupied and we have no numbers from there.
> And of course not a word about the people in Russia killed by Ukranians (Kursk region and daily killings by drones, of civilians, which the west is "not aware of").
Russia could stop this invasion any time and not a single Russian would be hurt. Pure Kreml propaganda on HN, how sad.
[−]testaccount28 · 2026-10-11 Sun 08:50 UTC ·
link
The highest, by far, death numbers come from Mariupol. It's a city close to the Russian border that was attacked very early in the war, but didn't surrender quickly like most other cities in the South. The estimates are somewhere close to 25K dead in this city alone. Civilians were unable to evacuate, and it was the time when Russia had plenty of resources, especially artillery munitions to expend and their tactics were to do massive artillery bombardment (often with rocket artillery) before massive motorized assault. So, lack of precision, or as some jokingly call it "accuracy through saturation".
Since Mariupol fell to Russia, they never counted the dead. There are horror stories of the bodies not being buried for month after surrender, and in some cases, Russians simply pawed over the places with many dead (a prominent example is the theater in the city center, but there were more).
The numbers you are quoting are the "counted" ones. Mariupol, Sieverodonetsk, Kherson, saw a lot of deaths that were never counted.
Sorry to bring another conflict into the picture, but it's useful to illustrate the point. In Gaza, the "health ministry" used a different "technique" to count the dead. Normally, to establish that someone died, there has to be a qualified medical professional at the scene, they also have to get a hold of identifying documents (or else, they will be counted as "John/Jane Doe", but in the morgue, much later). In some "special" cases a non-medical professional may record a death (they are usually defined using the language like "the head is more than 50 cm away from the rest of the body" etc.) But they switched to "incorporating reports from the news sources" (i.e. if some newspaper reported X people killed in some event, they just added X to the tally).
After the front line stabilized in Ukraine, they had no reason (or excuse) to count their civilian casualties in the way Gaza administration did, so, they never incorporated those who were never properly reported. And that's why we have a relatively "low" numbers. If Ukraine is ever able to regain control of the territory captured after 2022, these numbers are bound to go much, much higher, as they will have to deal with eg. property ownership and would have to either declare the previous owners as deceased, or actually find them.
Why is my comment downvoted? (Rhetorical question, of course, I know what you are.)
It is the reality that Russian civilians are killed daily by the Ukranian drones, guided also by your starlink satellites.
You may not like to hear this, but this is how things are.
You may not want to hear this, but this came down on you the day russian troups entered a sovereign country, the day your missiles attacked a sovereign country.
Ignoring the rest of your very characteristic comment, brainless and heartless, "You may not want to hear this" is wrong. For me, you may say what you like.
The problem is that you and your likes are actively obstructing an objective description of how things are.
This includes, but is not limited to: the causes of war, what you might call "ukranian nationalism", but there is a better word for it, Russian civilian victims, and a lotof other things which I would name were it not for the american peculiar ideas about "free speech", which means that this comment will have a very short life (if at all).
[−]monkey_monkey · 2026-10-11 Sun 11:54 UTC ·
link
> which means that this comment will have a very short life (if at all).
A bit like some of the conscripted Ruzzian orcs, eh?
If (if..) you have at least the decency to admit what the situation really is (though of course not what - or who - led to it, that would be too much for you), then you are at least not completely out of touch with reality.
The situation is Russians invaded Ukraine, murdered, plundered, tortured and raped Ukrainians, and then Ukrainians, instead of dropping dead like everyone expected, fought back.
What led to it? Putin wanting to re-establish the Russian empire as he said and wrote many times about.
It's a mystery to me, Hitler wrote exactly what he wanted to do, he did it and people were surprised. Putin wrote exactly what he wanted to do, he did it and people were surprised. A mystery.
Clarification: Starlink does not operate within Russia. If it did there would be fewer civilian casualties as drones would be guided to the actual targets.
Civilian casualties are always a tragedy, it's just that russians don't care about them anymore - malls, transport hubs etc are targeted during the day. Putin explicitly says he wants us to freeze during winter and his propagandists cry for frontline cities as well as Kyiv, Kharkiv and others to be bombed into oblivion.
"Ukranians were murdering Russian people in Donbass"
Russia settled Russians in Ukraine to control/destroy it for decades (like in the Baltics, Georgia and in many different places, the usual Russian tactic). Then Russia instigated a civil war in Ukraine and finally invaded Ukraine in 2014, of course there were fights in Donbass then (Russia also shot down a Malaysian plane in 2014 from Donbass).
"Your weapons are murdering Russian civilians right now, but you don't care, why?"
Because those Russian civilians voted and supported a dictator who wanted and wants to invade Europe and re-enslave the population. And Russians loved it, they loved it plundering and murdering and torturing people in Europe before and they will again.
Russia encouraged Serbs to start WW1 because Russians wanted to invade Europe through their puppets on the Balkans, later invaded Europe in 1939 in a joint military operation with the Nazis/Germans and will do so again whenever Russians see the chance to do so.
I'm not sure why, but they seem to love plundering, torturing, murdering and raping. If there is another explanation I can't see it.
I would prefer no war but a big wall, mile deep minefields and drone/ballistic/SDI defenses instead to keep Russians out and stop them from invading Europe again, but I guess Russia needs to first lose this war to make this a reality.
tl;dr Other parties are Putin-like, and if/when a genuine alternative emerges, Putin deals with them ruthlessly. Example: Navalny was the charismatic leader of a small but popular rival party with anti-corruption policies. He was initially delegitimised (not allowed to partake in the 2018 elections due to [likely fake] charges of embezzlement), then poisoned (nearly died), then imprisoned, and then killed while in prison.
Consider the terrifying message that sends to would-be political rivals...
Of course almost everyone thinks war is bad, but many seem to think it's justified - different thing.
There seem to be a wide support for the idea that Russia is threatened (economically and to an extent military) by the global West, and also that Ukraine is not entitled to be independent and also many of the official lies about the background.
Good lies have a nugget of truth in them, and this is the case also here.
Russia's economy is not growing (compared to EU, US), fertility rate is down, the revolution in Ukraine undermines the stability of the Russian regime, the attempted coup in Belarus was also a threat, NATO is arguably expanding - lately as a reaction to the war but nonetheless, EU is expanding into post-Soviet states both offering membership but also trade agreements which undercut Russia's ambition to be an economical hub in the region, etc.
Often, both are true. It's perfectly legitimate for anyone (Russian or otherwise) to have geo-political concerns (e.g. NATO expansion, Cuban missile crisis etc), but a Russian concerned about NATO expansion may also be very opposed to the extreme option of war as a solution.
War affects an ordinary Russian in very negative ways: the possibility of conscription (w/ risk of injury/death), complications for travel, sanctions on goods and services, and the economic opportunity cost (money wasted on war that could have gone to productive uses, plus reduced economic output due to drone strikes on yandex, wildberries, refineries).
Russia could fully integrate into EU/NATO if it really wanted.
That's just not compatible with ambitions of its corrupt leaders who want to be a root-level player, not "one of NATO countries". And I'm not sure how legitimate is prioritization of wants of corrupt leaders over well-being of your compatriots.
Ordinary Russians think "yeah war sucks, I wish Ukraine surrenders so peace can be restored". I'm afraid only a tiny minority believes Russia needs to surrender.
When the pager attack happened, there was a implicity sentiment on focusing on the technical details and not focus on politics. But I didn't see the same sentiment when Iran ballistic missles did their job.
Does anyone really believe Russia will eventually just surrender and leave? I can’t imagine the rationale to believe that. When Putin leaves all indications are that the next leader will actually be much more hawkish. They will only leave if someone bombs them to death. Which is quite a dangerous thing to do. Ukraine is pushing the limits, and everyone knows it’s with the help of many EU countries. I wonder what it will take for Russia to reach desperate measures in this war.
I see no reason why they can't agree on a truce: Russia haven't gained any meaningful ground for a while. A truce or even a peace treaty would be strictly beneficial to Russia.
Maybe this would remind ordinary russians that killing innocent civilians every day in Kyiv is not good
Estimate range is big because lots of civilians died in cities that ended up occupied.
"innocent civilians every day in Kyiv is not good".
Estimations for how many civilians Russians killed in Chechnya range from 45,000 to 80,000.
Does not sound like looking for a source, but I'm not a native speaker.
2) The UN estimate is considered on the low end because it looks into confirmed deaths while many civilians were killed in cities that became occupied and we have no numbers from there.
Russia could stop this invasion any time and not a single Russian would be hurt. Pure Kreml propaganda on HN, how sad.
Are we looking at the same thing? Was it deleted somewhere?
Since Mariupol fell to Russia, they never counted the dead. There are horror stories of the bodies not being buried for month after surrender, and in some cases, Russians simply pawed over the places with many dead (a prominent example is the theater in the city center, but there were more).
The numbers you are quoting are the "counted" ones. Mariupol, Sieverodonetsk, Kherson, saw a lot of deaths that were never counted.
Sorry to bring another conflict into the picture, but it's useful to illustrate the point. In Gaza, the "health ministry" used a different "technique" to count the dead. Normally, to establish that someone died, there has to be a qualified medical professional at the scene, they also have to get a hold of identifying documents (or else, they will be counted as "John/Jane Doe", but in the morgue, much later). In some "special" cases a non-medical professional may record a death (they are usually defined using the language like "the head is more than 50 cm away from the rest of the body" etc.) But they switched to "incorporating reports from the news sources" (i.e. if some newspaper reported X people killed in some event, they just added X to the tally).
After the front line stabilized in Ukraine, they had no reason (or excuse) to count their civilian casualties in the way Gaza administration did, so, they never incorporated those who were never properly reported. And that's why we have a relatively "low" numbers. If Ukraine is ever able to regain control of the territory captured after 2022, these numbers are bound to go much, much higher, as they will have to deal with eg. property ownership and would have to either declare the previous owners as deceased, or actually find them.
Why is my comment downvoted? (Rhetorical question, of course, I know what you are.) It is the reality that Russian civilians are killed daily by the Ukranian drones, guided also by your starlink satellites.
You may not like to hear this, but this is how things are.
Slava Ukraini!
The audacity of those bots these days.
The problem is that you and your likes are actively obstructing an objective description of how things are.
This includes, but is not limited to: the causes of war, what you might call "ukranian nationalism", but there is a better word for it, Russian civilian victims, and a lotof other things which I would name were it not for the american peculiar ideas about "free speech", which means that this comment will have a very short life (if at all).
A bit like some of the conscripted Ruzzian orcs, eh?
Simple, Putin talked about this for decades, you can read about it:
The goal is the re-establishment of the Russian empire in it's largest borders, beginning with his massacres in Chechnya and the invasion of Georgia.
Looks like Ukrainians don't believe in "turn to him the other cheek".
What led to it? Putin wanting to re-establish the Russian empire as he said and wrote many times about.
It's a mystery to me, Hitler wrote exactly what he wanted to do, he did it and people were surprised. Putin wrote exactly what he wanted to do, he did it and people were surprised. A mystery.
Your weapons are murdering Russian civilians right now, but you don't care, why?
There is a whole lot of Ukranian war crimes by now, but you don't care, why?
Russia settled Russians in Ukraine to control/destroy it for decades (like in the Baltics, Georgia and in many different places, the usual Russian tactic). Then Russia instigated a civil war in Ukraine and finally invaded Ukraine in 2014, of course there were fights in Donbass then (Russia also shot down a Malaysian plane in 2014 from Donbass).
"Your weapons are murdering Russian civilians right now, but you don't care, why?"
Because those Russian civilians voted and supported a dictator who wanted and wants to invade Europe and re-enslave the population. And Russians loved it, they loved it plundering and murdering and torturing people in Europe before and they will again.
Russia encouraged Serbs to start WW1 because Russians wanted to invade Europe through their puppets on the Balkans, later invaded Europe in 1939 in a joint military operation with the Nazis/Germans and will do so again whenever Russians see the chance to do so.
I'm not sure why, but they seem to love plundering, torturing, murdering and raping. If there is another explanation I can't see it.
I would prefer no war but a big wall, mile deep minefields and drone/ballistic/SDI defenses instead to keep Russians out and stop them from invading Europe again, but I guess Russia needs to first lose this war to make this a reality.
[1] https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/10/06/i-m-used-to-walking-...
Ordinary Russians think the war's bad too. Only difference is you and I can say that without getting 15 years in a (very harsh) prison.
tl;dr Other parties are Putin-like, and if/when a genuine alternative emerges, Putin deals with them ruthlessly. Example: Navalny was the charismatic leader of a small but popular rival party with anti-corruption policies. He was initially delegitimised (not allowed to partake in the 2018 elections due to [likely fake] charges of embezzlement), then poisoned (nearly died), then imprisoned, and then killed while in prison.
Consider the terrifying message that sends to would-be political rivals...
Maybe Russians outside Russia.
Of course almost everyone thinks war is bad, but many seem to think it's justified - different thing.
There seem to be a wide support for the idea that Russia is threatened (economically and to an extent military) by the global West, and also that Ukraine is not entitled to be independent and also many of the official lies about the background.
Good lies have a nugget of truth in them, and this is the case also here.
Russia's economy is not growing (compared to EU, US), fertility rate is down, the revolution in Ukraine undermines the stability of the Russian regime, the attempted coup in Belarus was also a threat, NATO is arguably expanding - lately as a reaction to the war but nonetheless, EU is expanding into post-Soviet states both offering membership but also trade agreements which undercut Russia's ambition to be an economical hub in the region, etc.
War affects an ordinary Russian in very negative ways: the possibility of conscription (w/ risk of injury/death), complications for travel, sanctions on goods and services, and the economic opportunity cost (money wasted on war that could have gone to productive uses, plus reduced economic output due to drone strikes on yandex, wildberries, refineries).
That's just not compatible with ambitions of its corrupt leaders who want to be a root-level player, not "one of NATO countries". And I'm not sure how legitimate is prioritization of wants of corrupt leaders over well-being of your compatriots.