>If you are a civilian living through aerial bombardment, your best bet for not being killed is if Russians, and not Americans, are the ones doing the bombing.
This, suffice to say, did not pass the sniff test and so I dug into the methodology of site Airwars from which the data that led to this conclusion came. What I found was overall sloppy handling of data and issues that expose the limitations of gauging civilian impact from raw numbers rather than practices. The site, a watchdog, makes no distinction between proportional strikes and disproportionate ones, nor does it distinguish between collateral damage and deliberate targeting of civilians.
1 Comment
I recently read [this post](https://mercenarydiplomat.substack.com/p/comparing-russian-and-us-airstrikes?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2971804&post_id=149691293&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ro41m&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email) that argued that:
>If you are a civilian living through aerial bombardment, your best bet for not being killed is if Russians, and not Americans, are the ones doing the bombing.
This, suffice to say, did not pass the sniff test and so I dug into the methodology of site Airwars from which the data that led to this conclusion came. What I found was overall sloppy handling of data and issues that expose the limitations of gauging civilian impact from raw numbers rather than practices. The site, a watchdog, makes no distinction between proportional strikes and disproportionate ones, nor does it distinguish between collateral damage and deliberate targeting of civilians.
!ping FOREIGN-POLICY&MILITARY&SOCIAL-SCIENCE