March 4, 2024 - 4:40pm
The average Russian soldier may wonder at times whether his own side poses a greater risk to his life than the enemy. The UK Ministry of Defence yesterday revealed that February constituted the bloodiest month for Russia’s troops since the invasion of Ukraine two years ago, with the average number of killed and wounded rising to 983 per day. The MoD attributed this to Moscow’s “commitment to mass and attritional warfare” which, though successful in putting “pressure on Ukraine’s positions across the frontline”, has proven “costly” to the lives of Russian servicemen.
Nowhere was this more apparent than in the Donetsk town of Avdiivka, which fell to the Russians in February and appears to be the main source of last month’s high death toll. While it is always difficult to pinpoint exact losses, neutral sources agree that Russia sustained staggering losses of men and equipment to ensure a symbolic and strategic gain.
Ukrainian Brigadier General Oleksandr Tarnavskyi has estimated that, from October until Ukraine’s February withdrawal, Avdiivka claimed 364 of Moscow’s tanks, 748 of its armoured fighting vehicles and 47,186 of its troops, who were either killed or injured. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba recently stated that the battle took more Russian lives than the entire decade of war waged by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
While Kyiv has an obvious interest in highlighting Moscow’s casualties, even Russian pro-war military blogger Andrei Morozov claimed last month that Russia sacrificed 16,000 men and 300 tanks to prevail in the city. Ukraine also sustained severe losses, albeit at a lower rate. Morozov estimated that Kyiv’s fatalities in defending Avdiivka were between 5,000 and 7,000 troops, while Ukrainian forces have spoken of a chaotic retreat in which 850 to 1,000 of their soldiers ended up captured or missing.
Ukrainian forces have described the waves of inexperienced Russian troops who, lacking protective equipment, have been sacrificed for small territorial advances. With Russia estimated to have 1,320,000 active soldiers and Ukraine 900,000, Moscow has the clear advantage of a larger population — Ukrainian troops who fought in Avdiivka recounted how, vastly outnumbered, they struggled to fend off the seemingly ceaseless deluge of enemy attacks.
This discrepancy allows Russia not just to absorb a high number of fatalities, but also to pursue multiple assaults in various directions along the entirety of the frontline. Russian defence analyst Ruslan Pukhov has characterised Moscow’s current strategy as an attritional approach of “inflicting many cuts” across the whole front line to exhaust Ukrainian forces, probe areas of weakness and create the preconditions for more significant breakthroughs. However, the strategy of sending out waves of under-trained conscripts is “very costly” for Russia’s army in terms of both men and equipment, leading to an “excessive depletion of forces”.
While Russia has long adopted these “meat grinder” tactics in the current war as well as conflicts past, there may be a particular reason why Russian President Vladimir Putin is willing to incur such high losses at this stage. In February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Moscow is planning a new counteroffensive in late May or the summer, while last year Oleksii Danilov, the Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, predicted that Putin may open a new wave of mobilisation after securing a mandate in this month’s presidential election. Putin could therefore be willing to accept more fatalities now in anticipation of a higher number of mobilised troops who might support his summertime offensive.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeRussia didn’t invent attritional warfare, but most of their conflicts have devolved into that sort of conflict, and they have a pretty strong records of defeating opponents by simply outlasting them. Putin is familiar with history and knows this. He is displaying the same sort of plodding patience that has served Russia so well so often in the past. He also knows that western populations are coddled and soft and will tire of the conflict long before Russians will. I’d say Putin is pretty confident in his strategic position at the moment. Even if Zelensky did an immediate about face and called for a negotiated end to the war and acknowledged the obvious fact that Ukraine will have to concede territory, I’m not sure Putin would accept it given the favorable conditions for the Russian side going forward. If he thinks there’s a chance of capturing additional territory, he might be tempted to throw even more men into the grinder. It would be a very Russian thing to do.
I hope you’re wrong. I hope this brings both sides to the negotiating table. The casualty total on both sides is horrific and inhumane. We are constantly told about the civilian casualties in Gaza, but almost all the soldiers on both sides of this battle are civilians forced to dress in uniform.
almost all the soldiers on both sides of this battle are civilians forced to dress in uniform.
Well I didn’t understand anything
Both countries are conscripting soldiers. They don’t have a choice, but to fight.
Russia isn’t using conscripts. A few got deployed “accidentally” at the start, and the officers concerned were punished.
Meanwhile, despite having watched a LOT of videos on Telegram, from both Russian and Ukrainian sources, I have yet to see any evidence that Russia is sending in “waves” of soldiers, ill-equipped or otherwise.
ie – this is all more nonsense designed to get the average clueless Westerner believing Ukraine can win if only “we” keep supplying money, weapons, intel, etc.
Exactly why this is, is hard to tell. Just MIC profits? Propagandists high on their own supply? Western politicians hoping the war in Ukraine will distract their electorates from their own disastrous performances?
The author quotes Ukrainian and UK sources with a straight face, as if either are remotely trustworthy. Just no.
And no – I’m not saying you can trust Russian announcements, either. But this isn’t a matter of being able to determine the truth by deciding which side is less untrustworthy – they both lie through their teeth. Constantly.
Assuming that both sides are brought to the “negotiating table”, and assuming that an “agreement” is reached, what on earth would lead you to believe that Putin would stick to that agreement?
Sorry, but I fail to follow the logic. Ukraine should not sign a peace deal because Putin might break it? Isn’t that a possibility with any peace deal. You sign the deal and double down on defending yourself from future attacks. The only other option would be endless war.
I’m not suggesting that Putin might break a peace deal, I’m saying that Putin will break a peace deal. Putin will view any cessation of hostilities as a time to reorganise and re-equip, before attacking again. Therefore, the only way that Ukraine would agree to such a thing is if they can use that time better than the Russians.
Don’t sign a peace deal because Putin will break the peace deal?If that’s the logic, the only possible solution is total capitulation by one side – and I doubt that is Russia. There has to be an off-ramp somewhere. Even if he does break the deal, Ukraine also gets time to regroup and rearm.
Why security guarantees from the West for Ukraine for any deal so critical. Exactly the same as Korea 53.
Ukraine already has a security guarantee from the US…and Russia! The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 by Russia, the US and UK prohibited the three signatory countries from threatening or using military force against Ukraine in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons stockpile following the collapse of the Soviet Union. How’s that working out for Ukraine?
Ukraine didn’t “give up” its nuclear weapons, they were paid for the fissile material, which was then repurposed for nuclear power plants.
I might add that if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons – which is something no-one actually wanted for non-proliferation reasons – and if they hadn’t been sold off by the corrupt Ukrainian leadership to Iran, N. Korea, Hezbollah or Hamas – quite a few would have wound up in rebel territory. How might that have effected the civil war there, do you think?
With regards to honouring the Budapest Memorandum, the US broke the deal first by sponsoring the 2014 Maidan coup, installing puppet governments, and setting up 12 bases (according to the NY Times) to spy on Russia and train Ukrainians to “kill Russians”.
I feel very, very sorry for Ukrainians, but this is what happens when your country is hijacked by the US in order to turn you into a proxy.
Ukraine had to have the Maidan uprising! Their then leader wanted to turn his back on Europe, and forge closer links with Russia!
The West is richer than Russia, has better weapons than Russia, and a greater population than Russia. If they find the will to fight, they will win. After all, they beat Russia in the Cold War for largely those reasons.
“almost all the soldiers on both sides of this battle are civilians forced to dress in uniform.”
Correction.
MALE civilians forced to dress in uniform.
So, as an aside, remember that when you see the next Hollywood or Netflix show with the mandatory kickass female, the relentless talks about diversity, female CEOs and gender pay gaps, or the feminist drivel about “anything a man can do…”
When it comes to doing a man’s job – driving trucks and working in factories, taking up the breadwinners role voluntarily, or going to die in wars – it’s going to be men. All while half of the defense ministers and most of the major defense company CEOs in the West just happen to be women.
I hope I’m wrong too, but we in the west at some point have to acknowledge we’re living in a bubble of privileged affluence that causes us to think differently about life, death, and everything else. For much of history, human life was bought, sold, and sacrificed in warfare for so little it would horrify modern western audiences. Russia and much of the Middle East still have some of that mentality. It’s unthinkable for us to use such strategies, sending wave after wave of men to overwhelm an enemy knowing half or more won’t be coming back, but the Russians have fought, and won, multiple conflicts this way.
Show me a single video of the Russians sending “wave after wave” of men. Just one; shouldn’t be hard, there’s a lot of footage from the battlefield from both sides.
Only in 1917 it seriously rebounded on the Russian leadership, who were running a Police state at the time too. History has different lessons.
He’s not confident which is why he’s sacrificing so many. He knows if Agent Orange gets back into the White House he’ll be safe, but he’s not certain yet that’s going to happen. So he wants to push Ukraine and the West as hard as he can now for some form of settlement. Then he’ll regroup and come back with other tactics and approaches to undermine Ukraine and the West. He has to. The mere existence of a free Ukraine and liberal economies on his doorstep an existential threat to a Mafia regime.
McMafia, a lot about Ukraine, but no mention of Russia. Ukraine,
Poroshenko put oligarchs in charge of the regions. Russia, Putin imprisoned them.
Perhaps, but Vladimir Putin is also a much better strategist and ruler than Nicholas II, whose incompetence reached historic levels and who was simply not equipped to handle the level of crisis that WWI was. The Russian Revolution was a combination of the pressures of war on a scale nobody had seen before, Russia’s traditional geographic and logistical disadvantages, a long period of decay under the latter tsars who veered wildly between reforming the still largely medieval Russian society and crushing all dissent and doubling down on traditional power structures, and utter incompetence on the part of leadership in handling the war and resulting logistic crises.
I think your supposition about Trump is questionable as well. Let’s not forget that Putin could have started his Ukraine conflict at any point from the annexation of Crimea in 2014. If Trump gave Putin any advantage, why did Russia not launch an invasion while Trump was still in office and might have been expected to do nothing or force Ukraine to negotiate? This seems illogical. It should be clear to everyone that support for Ukraine will be tenuous at best going forward regardless of who the President is. I’m sure Putin would prefer Trump to Biden as the former is more likely to damage relations between the US and Europe and force Zelensky to the table, but I’m not sure Putin is counting on a Trump victory to save himself from defeat either nor do I think who the President is will matter much on the peace treaty. Furthermore, Biden can’t force the Congress to pay for more Ukraine aid. The Ukraine aid bill that was held up for months as a political stunt to make Biden address the migrant situation still hasn’t passed, and in an election year there’s probably zero chance of getting it passed until after the election. Further, while Biden vs. Trump 2 is a toss up that either could win depending on how events play out between now and then, any political analyst will tell you that Republicans have an excellent chance to retake the Senate, which could lead to more repeats of what’s been happening recently.
Exactly in what way is Ukraine more “free” than Russia? Free speech? No, Gonzalo Lira was banged up for speaking out against the Kiev regime… and died from medical neglect therein. I might add that journalists routinely get murdered as commonly there as Russia.
Freedom of movement? No, men between the ages of 16 – 60 are forbidden to leave Ukraine; no such restrictions apply in Russia. I can go on Telegram and watch scores of clips of Ukrainians being thrown violently into the backs of vans by their press gangs, I’ve yet to see any such videos from Russia.
And what’s liberal about Ukraine’s economy? The median income of Russia is triple Ukraine’s.
As for Trump being some kind of Pocket Putinista, he was the first US president to send offensive weaponry to Ukraine.
Why come here and parrot easily debunked tropes? What’s the point?
As for Trump being some kind of Pocket Putinista. Trump is Putin’s Poodle. Trump’s adulation of Putin is palpable.
I wouldn’t be surprised if these were convict or press ganged squads. Or of course ethnic sources which Moscow believes should have a culling.
They certainly won’t be from Moscow or St Petersburg. Putin won’t want people to see numerous coffins being taken through the streets. Bit harder to hide the death toll that way
“….there may be a particular reason why Russian President Vladimir Putin is willing to incur such high losses at this stage“.
Could it be that he simply doesn’t care about the Russian people? I mean, that is a common enough position for a Russian leader to adopt.
It’s a common enough position for all leaders to adopt, including Ukraine’s, US, UK etc etc, otherwise they wouldn’t so enthusiastically start wars of choice and send their soldiers off to die in them.
Sometimes wars are unfortunately necessary.
Putins not doing the fighting
He has the blessing of the Church and Mother Russia to comfort him in his warm bed at night
What could possibly go wrong ?