![](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/a028164d-1cc7-4bfe-b811-143126f8806b.jpeg)
![](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/f17ad521-c66e-45b4-976b-eed9c8fbf5ed.png)
“Losses” does not mean deaths. Losses includes wounded, even those that will fully recover fairly quickly, right? If you blow out someone’s eardrums for example, they are “lost” as a soldier on the battlefield, because they are no longer available to the enemy.
And the phrase “up to” is doing a lot of heavy lifting, especially when it comes to troop numbers. That means the absolute maximum possible by their account. Like if they hit a building with artillery and their estimate is that there were 30-50 Ukrainian troops there that will count as up to 50 lost troops, despite the fact that they know very well that they probably did not wound/kill everyone in the building.
The real number of dead will be significantly lower. The number of wounded/sick/deserters will be high, but it is anyone’s guess exactly how high.
Maybe I’m just being contrarian, but I don’t think the water or the beach are very good in this painting. The wheat, greenery, cliffs and clouds are great, but the water and beach are kind of monotonous blobs that frankly aren’t that great in this painting.
If you take anything away from this post, let it be that Claude Monet had no idea how to paint water and I dare anyone to prove me wrong! That should be a reasonable idea to defend.