Thanks Don for condensing your 'big picture' comments from the weekly updates. You are absolutely right about the economics of the war pointing to a turning point where it's 'Ukraine's turn,' but I just don't see the Kremlin letting it get that far. Surely they'll do something before then, and it's bound to be UGLY. Depose Putin and blame him? Nuclear coercion? Chemical weapons? Or perhaps the ugly thing will come from the West (forcing Ukraine into negotiations), or perhaps China will keep Russia in the fight.
Haha good one ;) but seriously, if they were able to sell a withdrawal to their population, wouldn't they have done so by now? Or perhaps it's naive to assume they think like that
No, seriously, I don't think they can sell it. Their withdrawals so far were all framed as "goodwill" and "redeployment" and "consolidation of battle lines in more advantageous positions" (this one has been used by the ZSU as well) and suchlike. The reason they are in is that they believe they can still pull off an actual victory. Which they can, by the way, so continued support for Ukraine is necessary.
Well, they are wrecking all of NATO, are they not? The spetsoperatsiya took longer than expected because the West threw everything they had at them, but that has been burned through, Ukraine is now conscripting schoolgirls, magpies and the dead, while the Trumpatriotic caucus has refused to let any more equipment delivered to its unavoidable destruction.
It's what Putin's idea to invade was like in the first place, a point of view perfectly sane according to the information available to them.
Take heart. Russia's doing everything they can right now short of using nuclear weapons, and if they do that then Putin will die. Putin doesn't want to die and there's no indication that anyone has the inclination and capability to remove him.
This is a tough stretch for Ukraine but more artillery ammo is on the way. When it arrives, the high Russion loss rate will rise. The biggest question is how much damage will Russian air power cause Ukraine's infratructure and front lines before Ukraine is provided sufficient air defenses.
I don't see Ukraine giving up, being forced to negotiate or being overrun, in any case.
On what assumptions do you base the statement "I don't see Ukraine (...) being overrun, in any case"? I hope you are right, but from my point of view such a claim is far from certain.
Probably there won't be a broad, sweeping overrun along the line of contact, but why are you so sure that there won't be partial collapses with unforeseeable developments?
However I have to admit that I have no knowledge about the situation on the ground, no understanding of military problems and only limited, scattered second-hand information of dubious sources.
To be sure, there are no guarantees, but my views are based on the historical trends of events that already happened and the direction those trends are pointing towards in the future.
Part of what we believe is based on perceptions which is a version of reality. No one, not me, or any of the military organizations tracking the war, have a 100% understanding of the actual reality. That's impossible. But some perceptions are pretty close to it. The key is having as much correct data as possible and then understanding that data in context.
Social media provides a lot of data. The degree of accuracy of this data can vary widely. We often measure success or failure by territorial change but that's only one component. It's possible that no territory changes hands and yet the situation for one side may be seriously deteriorating. It could be that territory does change hands but the side the gains it is much worse off in the process.
Losing Bakhmut, Avdiivka, or eventually, maybe Chasiv Yar, is not good, but it's important to understand how much it hurt Russia and how much it hurt Ukraine. The Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive of 2022 overwhelmingly favored Ukraine and hurt Russia. The liberation of Kherson in the same year was definitely a good thing for Ukraine but Russia could have lost over 10,000 men with their associated equipment during the withdrawal across the river and they did not.
We know that Ukraine expended a lot of resources during the 2023 summer offensive and captured Robotyne. Was it worth it? We also know Russia has been expending a lot of resources trying to take it back. Two weeks ago, I posted an image of how little territory Russia has gained in six months despite all their losses.
And the fundamental source of all combat power is economies and production. The trends are fairly clear there, but the biggest variables are the political decisions that direct the economies and production.
I didn't doubt your expertise, but the quality of the available information in general varies greatly and is often part of a (dis)information campaign.
I'm particularly afraid that both sides are interested as much in fighting the enemy as in maintaining the image of their own strength by all means possible. Accordingly I consider it unlikely that significant changes in the course of the war will occur in a calculable and predictable manner, but rather unexpectedly and suddenly at the moment when the demonstration of power and control can no longer be maintained by one party.
As a layman, I'm simply overwhelmed to form an objective and reliable picture by myself. For this reason it reassures me a little when experts like you claim that the communicated plans and intentions are realistic, because they can be factually verified.
Controlling perceptions to shape public will has been practiced for centuries. Along with the economy and production, the will to fight is a basic driving force.
If you haven't already, read Thomas Pakenham's history of the Boer War. It shows beautifully how fragile winning and losing is. Sometimes a fluke leads to an unexpected breakthrough. Sometimes the job of the commander is to make an orderly retreat before morale collapses and suddenly everyone runs away. it's impossible to predict.
I put my bet on the last option. Sadly, China won't let ruzzia lose. We keep forgetting that winnie the pooh is a highly ideological psycho ready for anything if it benefits his long-term vision
He would do it already, but is holding back because of a threat of USA, EU economic sanction. Even the start of the war in Ukraine is unfavorable to him, because EU, USA starting to improve independency in stategic industries. So, it's not sure how the pooh will react.
Yet, I wouldn’t count on Russian weapons to end first.Ukraine just got 80 quite old BTRs or BMPs from an Eastern country - Bulgaria. Now you tell me how much are rusting in North Korea - probably thousands and I’m sure that for the right price Kim will let them go. At some point China will also offer theirs if the situation becomes critical. The only finite resource is the people in Russia. The population is not so big to sustain a disproportionate loss to the Ukrainian casualties. The attacks on refineries if sustained and expanded were promising but now Russia has probably strengthened its air defenses around them. Yet, there are a limited number of steel plants, LNG export terminals, rubber and tire facilities - and destruction of them will help. But a drone with 20kg of explosives can only inflict quite a limited damage…
China doesn't want to have problem with sanctions, bussines first, so i am skeptic to china weapon sell( some cars, tools yes). IF China start selling it must be very good payed, big ammount and with big rabat and i doubt russia has enough money for good offer to china. Only in case China will attack Taiwan it is possible.
Just coincide but the Kyiv Independant released another of its valuable field report. While core subject is about medical evacuation, witnesses accounts say 3 separate battalions are reduced only one M113 and BMP each.
In the same article, it is said that since last summer counter-offensive, 90% of the then members of the 80th Air Assault Brigade were KIA, WIA or MIA.
Tbh I dont share Don's optimism for medium term perspective and I am in fact very pessimistic.
"The only finite resource is the people in Russia."
The optimistic expectation of their losses is about 0.5M per 2 years. They have about 150M of population. Considering they use both youth and elders currently even for stormtroopes, it means their mobilization resource is no less then 50M. That's enough for 100 years of this kind of war, so no, this reasource is practically the most infinite of all they have.
While simple equations like [conscriptable pop.]/[avg. annual attrition] = [potential years of war] are enticing, they aren’t actually useful or accurate. Populations change over time, and attrition impacts how they change. And 100 years is almost twice the average lifespan of the populace you’re modeling, so…
Additionally, I expect the more salient threshold is what percentage of attrition triggers a meaningful civil response, however that discomfiture is channeled. Even in Russia, you’ll run out of Putins long before you run out of men who can hold guns.
Population change over time is even slower then the war losses. And I didn't even mentioned that the Rusian rate of birth 18 years ago was still more then twice higher then the optimistic Russian losses are, so their youth is maturing faster then they lose men in combat. And yes, sure, 100 years is almost twice the average lifespan of the populace, which makes obvious, man, that the rate of manpower losses are TOO fkng LOW to attrite the fkng population in this was, that's the fkng point.
The meaningful civil response in Russia is three things: obey, obey and obey. A million of polizai, man. Non of the polizai is on the front. The most numerous and desperate protests never get even a sign of readiness to fight. Look at the videos - they weren't ready to fight for their captured comrades even having a 100:1 advantage on the polizai. No chance of riots before either the dissolution of the central government or the annihilation of the Army.
North Korea's army has deteriorated since 1991. The numbers of vehicles they have vary widely by reports but 4,000 tanks and 2500 armored vehicles seems to be somewhere in the middle. Some of those models are T-34s, which are certainly better than golf carts. No one had the stored vehicles like the US and USSR had.
China will suffer economically if they provide military equipment to Russia.
The situation between Ukrainian drones and Russian air defenses is still developing. Let's see what happens.
When the Russian stored vehicles are gone, it doesn't mean their army will vanish but it will mean that the vehicles in their army will decrease at a much faster rate. With fewer vehicles, their assaults will be less effective. So will their defenses.
Do you see any problems with money for Russia? Now the fuel prices are increasing because of the Israel-Iran conflict (no, not because of Ukraine). So Putin wil make more money.
Iran and North Korea are able to supply missiles, mostly. Korea also sent artillery ammo. Russia seems to be short on neither one currently, but if they burn away their armored vehicles, they will be reduced to just bombarding the place. They will be in trouble taking new territory or counterattacking Ukrainian advances.
Korea will also need to maintain enough ordnance against the other Korea. Iran, on the other hand, might need to spend its missiles against Israel at this point.
Thanks for the great write up Don. Excellent overview especially on the loss projection and imminent loss of Russian offensive strength in the long run.
Something i always thought about but never found any answer is if just like russia ukraine have hundreds of old soviet era equipment in storage that can be refurbished?
Interesting read, thanx, but sadly full of....discrepancies. Let me point out a few.
1) "BTRs are out of production for decades and nearly all currently still in service have been removed from storage." Wrong, BTR-82a is in full production power. Produced in hundreds, not in thousands, sure thing, but still.
2) "Some of this is going to be replaced by hundreds of Soviet-era armoured fighting vehicles Ukraine is likely to receive from Poland - once that country replaces them with vehicles from Korea or licence production at home." Wrong, Polish re- armament with Korean weapons has just started and implies a lot of efforts to make them assembled in Poland. It will take at least 4-5 years to see solid results. And, btw, Poland already supplied most of it Soviet-era arms to Ukraine.
3) Production of Bohdana is declared launched, but let's see what will be in reality and, most important, its REAL characteristics. Furthermore, I recommend to check lostarmour guys video collections of Lancet strikes. Each week 10+ UA artillery pieces getting destroyed:
Add here regular Krasnopol kills and airstrikes. Conclusion: effectively, largest part of UA artillery is gone (especially short-range Soviet-era stuff). Check Oryx conservative calculations of M777 losses. So, the issue is not shells themselves, but the howitzers.
As per Russian economy, take a look at this one:
Russia posts accelerated 4.6% GDP growth in January
And this is despite rather destructive financial policy of the Russian Central Bank.
For a change, I would advise to check prospects of UA economy
One important thing to remember that in nowadays "war of drones" old "values" like number of tanks, BMPs, and etc are getting secondary. So, principal question which side will win the war of drones.
P.S. I really like your note about "SERIOUS" ally. Like it or not, but the only dangerous for Russia UA ally is USA. Luckily for Russia, US support is minimum and just enough for UA not to lose immediately. My imho, considering latest Western approaches towards Ukraine we could see modern days: "MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN". But this is another story.
Russia GDP grow. It is not a problem to grow GDP for 2-3 years and then bankrupt. Question is what is the source of grow and simply answer is spending reserves which were created before war and now how long can russia do it Everything what is now produced is destroyed so it cannot be use for another grow. Another thing is that because of sanctions most things buyed from abroad are expensive, maybe 10% maybe 200, it depends.
Howitzers are produced not only in UA and France, but also Sweden, Polland, Germany, Slovakia... and overall production is much bigger as in Russia.
And there is still lot of stuff in Poland and other countries which can be send, but Polland is carefull, but if Poland get 10 new tanks, and RU lost 100 tanks, then Poland can transfer 20 old to UA.
UA economy is detroyed and need help from EU but it not a problem because of volume. RU economy can be destroyed also easy, UA needs more drones which are now produced and attacking rafineries and other similar stuff. It is possible that this attack will be done after USA election, but we see that RU is not able to protect these places,
There's a huge misunderstanding in the "West" about what's going on with the Russian economy. It's indeed booming (to my surprise as well, I must admit). There are plenty of reasons, I will outline principal two:
1) paradoxically, sanctions now keep oligarhs money in Russia. If 5 years ago, billions of earning from raw materials were kept at account with JPMorgan, and etc, now they (money) stay in Russia and heavily invested in huge infrustructural projects
2) due to the cease of export of many foreign goods to Russian, a lot of local replacement production projects. And be assured, Chinese will sell you any equipment required
to 1 point. we see how many russian run away to dubai, georgia, .. and buying there house and it was mostly rich one or clever ones ( IT, busines man)
2. yes thats the plan, you want to produce everything in russia, computers, playstations, processors.. but the reality. Chinesse will sell many thing but with higher rabatt because of sanctions and limited competition and to develop new thing you need a lot of engineer, but last 30 years many such people go to west, after war there was another wave, some are in prisons and rest is producing weapons, so no change to develop a lot of. Russia is to small to produce enough diffrent things, , also USA is not able to produce everything and they have positive migration of technical guys.
On your economic points, this has been discussed before. No one is giving Russia stuff for free (which it desperately needs for free). Focusing an economy on producing things that blow up takes its toll. The GDP growth figure is misleading. Unless actual donations are provided from other countries, Russia's economic situation will continue to worsen until serious issues arise.
Europe can fend off Russia (via Ukraine) by itself, as long as it has the US nuclear umbrella. What it requires is will, not capability. I don't believe Europe will abandon Ukraine, even if the USA does.
Sorry, a complete misunderstanding on Russian economy. Russia does not need anything for free. It was a sheer exporter of capital for the last 20 years. Check the trade balance. Even now, in the time of war, Russia gives credits and provides financial assistance to the third world countries. Money is not a problem at all
Fine, then we are all wrong and Russia will prevail. And the evil Ukraine will be crushed just like it should be. Seriously though, I know what kind of commenter you are, what with your cruel and misappropriated quotation regarding Belshazzar - you are a Russia supporter, and I will not bite.
If you actually ask people who operate artilery they'll tell you - the shells is issue. In most cases result of fancy videos with lancet or another drone strikes is that artilery piece survived . On both sides.
This seems to be coming from a complete misunderstanding of what GDP is:
- Russia loses 10 tanks, then pulls 10 out of storage and pays for Chinese components to make them combat-capable - that's GDP, and puts the country in debt
- Russian private citizen takes a private loan to buy a Chinese car (oh sorry, I meant Moskvich that's totally manufactured in Russia and just happens to look 100% like a chinese car) - that's GDP, and puts the country in debt
- Russia manufactures some crude oil and exports it at good price - that's also GDP, and helps with the debt/savings, but to a limited extent, and dependent not only on the price, but also on the production numbers.
- Russia manufactures crude oil, refines it and then sells the refined products - that's even better for GDP and savings/debt but not very likely to be happening lately. :)
Sorry, anything related to arms import is classified. Indirectly you can see publishings about import from Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, China, and etc. But noone in sane mind in Russia will investigate it. Same with military industry. Everyone understands that Russian military industry works in 3 shifts but only official announcement are available.
No wonder such articles almost exclusively focus on Russia. It is because they reserves and prodiction to some extand can be analysed. When you talking about Ukraine what can we tell? "Umm ehhh, they will receive as much as partners countries monkeys in power give them, which is depend on what they ate for breakfast" Not much to analyse with a level of confidence above 0.1% right? I bet a few (if anyone) knew year ago how supply on this side will look like. That's why all talk about this amunition or that vehicles will last for X month make little sense.
I agree. If you want to save the patient, you must do it in due time. But the focus seems not on the patient, but on how well they can understand the disease :(
Also, even if Ukraine is trying to produce internally a lot of stuff, one never know when some missiles gets though and destroy the whole factory, as we have seen already. Not the same in Russia because it is too big to touch all areas and not the same in Israel which have an AD built in tens of years and it is helped by the external partners to defend against missiles. There is actually no balance of power. But hopefully Ukrainians will find a way.
But, russians have such a big loses because they attack. What if they stop attacking, dig and continue threatening with missiles and UAVs only? Will the time work against them? In this case Ukraine will remain at war, with blocked economical and integration processes. Or.. no? Is the scenario of South Korea similar?
About a half of the Russian combat vehicles losses are quite in depth, the same as all of their artillery losses, so holhing on defence will just elongate the attritional phase from 1-2 to 2-3 years.
I would be careful with Perpetua's figures (including Ukrainian losses), as his team's standards for inclusion seem to be concerningly-low compared to the other two or three major pro-UA trackers.
My own calculations have consistently shown something like late 2026 as a deadline period for the Russian military's offensive capacity. Even the relatively-steep equipment losses taken over the past half-year are really comparable to the 2022 spring offensive or the 2023 winter campaign. So add at least 6 months to the 18-24 month projection.
Those figures on personnel losses are not realistic unless all wounded are included - but then, most wounded are not losses.
Regarding BTRs, they are still in production. According to this TopWar article from 2021, 40-50% of BTR-82 were new-build. New builds delivered in 2020 were 130. It is near-certain that new IFVs in 2024 (BMP-3, BTR-82, BMD-4) will reach at least 500, but possibly many more.
I had only now time to read this text thouroughly. Thank you so very much. It helps me a lot to understand much better the development and perspectives of the war on the battlefields.
Thanks for the update. One note from an economist: despite the interest rate of the Russian central bank at 16% for a quarter, and above 10% since August last year, their inflation is still at around 7.5-8% level and does not seem to be slowing, even according to their own communications. This clearly indicates that the Russian economy is heated up. In normal circumstances we would expect a crash akin to Argentina, but they are postponing it by the "war keynesianism" (ie high military spending from the state budget). This is not sustainable, but further more implies they will be unable to significantly increase military production without some drastic economic measures (like in the 1930ties).
Finally somebody's starting to articulate this textbook thing.
Thanks Don for condensing your 'big picture' comments from the weekly updates. You are absolutely right about the economics of the war pointing to a turning point where it's 'Ukraine's turn,' but I just don't see the Kremlin letting it get that far. Surely they'll do something before then, and it's bound to be UGLY. Depose Putin and blame him? Nuclear coercion? Chemical weapons? Or perhaps the ugly thing will come from the West (forcing Ukraine into negotiations), or perhaps China will keep Russia in the fight.
No worry, they will just get out of Ukraine and their PRBS machine would paint it as their victory.
True, but its a bit more difficult to sell it to the returning soldiers, right?
They can take a few border regions of Kazakhstan instead, and claim that the biolabs had moved there.
Haha good one ;) but seriously, if they were able to sell a withdrawal to their population, wouldn't they have done so by now? Or perhaps it's naive to assume they think like that
No, seriously, I don't think they can sell it. Their withdrawals so far were all framed as "goodwill" and "redeployment" and "consolidation of battle lines in more advantageous positions" (this one has been used by the ZSU as well) and suchlike. The reason they are in is that they believe they can still pull off an actual victory. Which they can, by the way, so continued support for Ukraine is necessary.
My Russian contacts tell me they are utterly convinced they will win.
Russian contacts in Russia?
Yes, my girlfriend is Russian and I hear the "point of view" (i.e. insanity) from Russia all the time.
Well, they are wrecking all of NATO, are they not? The spetsoperatsiya took longer than expected because the West threw everything they had at them, but that has been burned through, Ukraine is now conscripting schoolgirls, magpies and the dead, while the Trumpatriotic caucus has refused to let any more equipment delivered to its unavoidable destruction.
It's what Putin's idea to invade was like in the first place, a point of view perfectly sane according to the information available to them.
Yes, the insane bit is believing the nonsense and then adding a bit and passing it on.
Being convinced you will win feels better than being convinced you will lose.
They live in a different world than we do.
Can confirm that: mine too. They've got absolutely no doubts about this.
They're hoping the second coming of the "very stable genius" will give them a face saving exit.
Take heart. Russia's doing everything they can right now short of using nuclear weapons, and if they do that then Putin will die. Putin doesn't want to die and there's no indication that anyone has the inclination and capability to remove him.
This is a tough stretch for Ukraine but more artillery ammo is on the way. When it arrives, the high Russion loss rate will rise. The biggest question is how much damage will Russian air power cause Ukraine's infratructure and front lines before Ukraine is provided sufficient air defenses.
I don't see Ukraine giving up, being forced to negotiate or being overrun, in any case.
On what assumptions do you base the statement "I don't see Ukraine (...) being overrun, in any case"? I hope you are right, but from my point of view such a claim is far from certain.
Probably there won't be a broad, sweeping overrun along the line of contact, but why are you so sure that there won't be partial collapses with unforeseeable developments?
However I have to admit that I have no knowledge about the situation on the ground, no understanding of military problems and only limited, scattered second-hand information of dubious sources.
To be sure, there are no guarantees, but my views are based on the historical trends of events that already happened and the direction those trends are pointing towards in the future.
Part of what we believe is based on perceptions which is a version of reality. No one, not me, or any of the military organizations tracking the war, have a 100% understanding of the actual reality. That's impossible. But some perceptions are pretty close to it. The key is having as much correct data as possible and then understanding that data in context.
Social media provides a lot of data. The degree of accuracy of this data can vary widely. We often measure success or failure by territorial change but that's only one component. It's possible that no territory changes hands and yet the situation for one side may be seriously deteriorating. It could be that territory does change hands but the side the gains it is much worse off in the process.
Losing Bakhmut, Avdiivka, or eventually, maybe Chasiv Yar, is not good, but it's important to understand how much it hurt Russia and how much it hurt Ukraine. The Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive of 2022 overwhelmingly favored Ukraine and hurt Russia. The liberation of Kherson in the same year was definitely a good thing for Ukraine but Russia could have lost over 10,000 men with their associated equipment during the withdrawal across the river and they did not.
We know that Ukraine expended a lot of resources during the 2023 summer offensive and captured Robotyne. Was it worth it? We also know Russia has been expending a lot of resources trying to take it back. Two weeks ago, I posted an image of how little territory Russia has gained in six months despite all their losses.
And the fundamental source of all combat power is economies and production. The trends are fairly clear there, but the biggest variables are the political decisions that direct the economies and production.
Thanks for your explanations.
I didn't doubt your expertise, but the quality of the available information in general varies greatly and is often part of a (dis)information campaign.
I'm particularly afraid that both sides are interested as much in fighting the enemy as in maintaining the image of their own strength by all means possible. Accordingly I consider it unlikely that significant changes in the course of the war will occur in a calculable and predictable manner, but rather unexpectedly and suddenly at the moment when the demonstration of power and control can no longer be maintained by one party.
As a layman, I'm simply overwhelmed to form an objective and reliable picture by myself. For this reason it reassures me a little when experts like you claim that the communicated plans and intentions are realistic, because they can be factually verified.
All questions are welcome.
Controlling perceptions to shape public will has been practiced for centuries. Along with the economy and production, the will to fight is a basic driving force.
If you haven't already, read Thomas Pakenham's history of the Boer War. It shows beautifully how fragile winning and losing is. Sometimes a fluke leads to an unexpected breakthrough. Sometimes the job of the commander is to make an orderly retreat before morale collapses and suddenly everyone runs away. it's impossible to predict.
I put my bet on the last option. Sadly, China won't let ruzzia lose. We keep forgetting that winnie the pooh is a highly ideological psycho ready for anything if it benefits his long-term vision
He would do it already, but is holding back because of a threat of USA, EU economic sanction. Even the start of the war in Ukraine is unfavorable to him, because EU, USA starting to improve independency in stategic industries. So, it's not sure how the pooh will react.
Thanks Don!
Yet, I wouldn’t count on Russian weapons to end first.Ukraine just got 80 quite old BTRs or BMPs from an Eastern country - Bulgaria. Now you tell me how much are rusting in North Korea - probably thousands and I’m sure that for the right price Kim will let them go. At some point China will also offer theirs if the situation becomes critical. The only finite resource is the people in Russia. The population is not so big to sustain a disproportionate loss to the Ukrainian casualties. The attacks on refineries if sustained and expanded were promising but now Russia has probably strengthened its air defenses around them. Yet, there are a limited number of steel plants, LNG export terminals, rubber and tire facilities - and destruction of them will help. But a drone with 20kg of explosives can only inflict quite a limited damage…
China doesn't want to have problem with sanctions, bussines first, so i am skeptic to china weapon sell( some cars, tools yes). IF China start selling it must be very good payed, big ammount and with big rabat and i doubt russia has enough money for good offer to china. Only in case China will attack Taiwan it is possible.
I am inclined to agree with your first sentence.
Just coincide but the Kyiv Independant released another of its valuable field report. While core subject is about medical evacuation, witnesses accounts say 3 separate battalions are reduced only one M113 and BMP each.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1779986434281095185
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1779986436072096136
In the same article, it is said that since last summer counter-offensive, 90% of the then members of the 80th Air Assault Brigade were KIA, WIA or MIA.
Tbh I dont share Don's optimism for medium term perspective and I am in fact very pessimistic.
"The only finite resource is the people in Russia."
The optimistic expectation of their losses is about 0.5M per 2 years. They have about 150M of population. Considering they use both youth and elders currently even for stormtroopes, it means their mobilization resource is no less then 50M. That's enough for 100 years of this kind of war, so no, this reasource is practically the most infinite of all they have.
While simple equations like [conscriptable pop.]/[avg. annual attrition] = [potential years of war] are enticing, they aren’t actually useful or accurate. Populations change over time, and attrition impacts how they change. And 100 years is almost twice the average lifespan of the populace you’re modeling, so…
Additionally, I expect the more salient threshold is what percentage of attrition triggers a meaningful civil response, however that discomfiture is channeled. Even in Russia, you’ll run out of Putins long before you run out of men who can hold guns.
Population change over time is even slower then the war losses. And I didn't even mentioned that the Rusian rate of birth 18 years ago was still more then twice higher then the optimistic Russian losses are, so their youth is maturing faster then they lose men in combat. And yes, sure, 100 years is almost twice the average lifespan of the populace, which makes obvious, man, that the rate of manpower losses are TOO fkng LOW to attrite the fkng population in this was, that's the fkng point.
The meaningful civil response in Russia is three things: obey, obey and obey. A million of polizai, man. Non of the polizai is on the front. The most numerous and desperate protests never get even a sign of readiness to fight. Look at the videos - they weren't ready to fight for their captured comrades even having a 100:1 advantage on the polizai. No chance of riots before either the dissolution of the central government or the annihilation of the Army.
North Korea's army has deteriorated since 1991. The numbers of vehicles they have vary widely by reports but 4,000 tanks and 2500 armored vehicles seems to be somewhere in the middle. Some of those models are T-34s, which are certainly better than golf carts. No one had the stored vehicles like the US and USSR had.
China will suffer economically if they provide military equipment to Russia.
The situation between Ukrainian drones and Russian air defenses is still developing. Let's see what happens.
When the Russian stored vehicles are gone, it doesn't mean their army will vanish but it will mean that the vehicles in their army will decrease at a much faster rate. With fewer vehicles, their assaults will be less effective. So will their defenses.
Isn't Russua already buying from Iran an North Corea? Why can't it increase the import in the next 2 years?
Money
Do you see any problems with money for Russia? Now the fuel prices are increasing because of the Israel-Iran conflict (no, not because of Ukraine). So Putin wil make more money.
Iran and North Korea are able to supply missiles, mostly. Korea also sent artillery ammo. Russia seems to be short on neither one currently, but if they burn away their armored vehicles, they will be reduced to just bombarding the place. They will be in trouble taking new territory or counterattacking Ukrainian advances.
Korea will also need to maintain enough ordnance against the other Korea. Iran, on the other hand, might need to spend its missiles against Israel at this point.
Thanks for the great write up Don. Excellent overview especially on the loss projection and imminent loss of Russian offensive strength in the long run.
"of our tank kills ... 40% are unknown cause"
It must be spontaneous combustion. Or perhaps smoking in the wrong place, similarly to when ammo depots go up and ships down.
Something i always thought about but never found any answer is if just like russia ukraine have hundreds of old soviet era equipment in storage that can be refurbished?
I believe most of it has been sold out during the 30 years of Ukraine's independence.
Maybe Ukraine still has something, but I think it is not easy to get spare parts for those either.
Interesting read, thanx, but sadly full of....discrepancies. Let me point out a few.
1) "BTRs are out of production for decades and nearly all currently still in service have been removed from storage." Wrong, BTR-82a is in full production power. Produced in hundreds, not in thousands, sure thing, but still.
2) "Some of this is going to be replaced by hundreds of Soviet-era armoured fighting vehicles Ukraine is likely to receive from Poland - once that country replaces them with vehicles from Korea or licence production at home." Wrong, Polish re- armament with Korean weapons has just started and implies a lot of efforts to make them assembled in Poland. It will take at least 4-5 years to see solid results. And, btw, Poland already supplied most of it Soviet-era arms to Ukraine.
3) Production of Bohdana is declared launched, but let's see what will be in reality and, most important, its REAL characteristics. Furthermore, I recommend to check lostarmour guys video collections of Lancet strikes. Each week 10+ UA artillery pieces getting destroyed:
https://lostarmour.info/tags/lancet
Add here regular Krasnopol kills and airstrikes. Conclusion: effectively, largest part of UA artillery is gone (especially short-range Soviet-era stuff). Check Oryx conservative calculations of M777 losses. So, the issue is not shells themselves, but the howitzers.
As per Russian economy, take a look at this one:
Russia posts accelerated 4.6% GDP growth in January
https://www.intellinews.com/russia-posts-accelerated-4-6-gdp-growth-in-january-314736/
And this is despite rather destructive financial policy of the Russian Central Bank.
For a change, I would advise to check prospects of UA economy
One important thing to remember that in nowadays "war of drones" old "values" like number of tanks, BMPs, and etc are getting secondary. So, principal question which side will win the war of drones.
P.S. I really like your note about "SERIOUS" ally. Like it or not, but the only dangerous for Russia UA ally is USA. Luckily for Russia, US support is minimum and just enough for UA not to lose immediately. My imho, considering latest Western approaches towards Ukraine we could see modern days: "MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN". But this is another story.
Russia GDP grow. It is not a problem to grow GDP for 2-3 years and then bankrupt. Question is what is the source of grow and simply answer is spending reserves which were created before war and now how long can russia do it Everything what is now produced is destroyed so it cannot be use for another grow. Another thing is that because of sanctions most things buyed from abroad are expensive, maybe 10% maybe 200, it depends.
Howitzers are produced not only in UA and France, but also Sweden, Polland, Germany, Slovakia... and overall production is much bigger as in Russia.
And there is still lot of stuff in Poland and other countries which can be send, but Polland is carefull, but if Poland get 10 new tanks, and RU lost 100 tanks, then Poland can transfer 20 old to UA.
UA economy is detroyed and need help from EU but it not a problem because of volume. RU economy can be destroyed also easy, UA needs more drones which are now produced and attacking rafineries and other similar stuff. It is possible that this attack will be done after USA election, but we see that RU is not able to protect these places,
There's a huge misunderstanding in the "West" about what's going on with the Russian economy. It's indeed booming (to my surprise as well, I must admit). There are plenty of reasons, I will outline principal two:
1) paradoxically, sanctions now keep oligarhs money in Russia. If 5 years ago, billions of earning from raw materials were kept at account with JPMorgan, and etc, now they (money) stay in Russia and heavily invested in huge infrustructural projects
2) due to the cease of export of many foreign goods to Russian, a lot of local replacement production projects. And be assured, Chinese will sell you any equipment required
to 1 point. we see how many russian run away to dubai, georgia, .. and buying there house and it was mostly rich one or clever ones ( IT, busines man)
2. yes thats the plan, you want to produce everything in russia, computers, playstations, processors.. but the reality. Chinesse will sell many thing but with higher rabatt because of sanctions and limited competition and to develop new thing you need a lot of engineer, but last 30 years many such people go to west, after war there was another wave, some are in prisons and rest is producing weapons, so no change to develop a lot of. Russia is to small to produce enough diffrent things, , also USA is not able to produce everything and they have positive migration of technical guys.
On your economic points, this has been discussed before. No one is giving Russia stuff for free (which it desperately needs for free). Focusing an economy on producing things that blow up takes its toll. The GDP growth figure is misleading. Unless actual donations are provided from other countries, Russia's economic situation will continue to worsen until serious issues arise.
Europe can fend off Russia (via Ukraine) by itself, as long as it has the US nuclear umbrella. What it requires is will, not capability. I don't believe Europe will abandon Ukraine, even if the USA does.
Sorry, a complete misunderstanding on Russian economy. Russia does not need anything for free. It was a sheer exporter of capital for the last 20 years. Check the trade balance. Even now, in the time of war, Russia gives credits and provides financial assistance to the third world countries. Money is not a problem at all
Fine, then we are all wrong and Russia will prevail. And the evil Ukraine will be crushed just like it should be. Seriously though, I know what kind of commenter you are, what with your cruel and misappropriated quotation regarding Belshazzar - you are a Russia supporter, and I will not bite.
If you actually ask people who operate artilery they'll tell you - the shells is issue. In most cases result of fancy videos with lancet or another drone strikes is that artilery piece survived . On both sides.
This seems to be coming from a complete misunderstanding of what GDP is:
- Russia loses 10 tanks, then pulls 10 out of storage and pays for Chinese components to make them combat-capable - that's GDP, and puts the country in debt
- Russian private citizen takes a private loan to buy a Chinese car (oh sorry, I meant Moskvich that's totally manufactured in Russia and just happens to look 100% like a chinese car) - that's GDP, and puts the country in debt
- Russia manufactures some crude oil and exports it at good price - that's also GDP, and helps with the debt/savings, but to a limited extent, and dependent not only on the price, but also on the production numbers.
- Russia manufactures crude oil, refines it and then sells the refined products - that's even better for GDP and savings/debt but not very likely to be happening lately. :)
Selling oil for Rupees that never come out of India's account is also good for GDP. :D
Thank-you, very Interesting.
I'm interested in how Russian guns are holding up, as this is primarily an artillery war. The Ukrainians
have destroyed a lot, North Korean ammo has accounted for a few, and there must be a lot of worn
barrels.
Sorry, anything related to arms import is classified. Indirectly you can see publishings about import from Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, China, and etc. But noone in sane mind in Russia will investigate it. Same with military industry. Everyone understands that Russian military industry works in 3 shifts but only official announcement are available.
No wonder such articles almost exclusively focus on Russia. It is because they reserves and prodiction to some extand can be analysed. When you talking about Ukraine what can we tell? "Umm ehhh, they will receive as much as partners countries monkeys in power give them, which is depend on what they ate for breakfast" Not much to analyse with a level of confidence above 0.1% right? I bet a few (if anyone) knew year ago how supply on this side will look like. That's why all talk about this amunition or that vehicles will last for X month make little sense.
I agree. If you want to save the patient, you must do it in due time. But the focus seems not on the patient, but on how well they can understand the disease :(
Also, even if Ukraine is trying to produce internally a lot of stuff, one never know when some missiles gets though and destroy the whole factory, as we have seen already. Not the same in Russia because it is too big to touch all areas and not the same in Israel which have an AD built in tens of years and it is helped by the external partners to defend against missiles. There is actually no balance of power. But hopefully Ukrainians will find a way.
But, russians have such a big loses because they attack. What if they stop attacking, dig and continue threatening with missiles and UAVs only? Will the time work against them? In this case Ukraine will remain at war, with blocked economical and integration processes. Or.. no? Is the scenario of South Korea similar?
About a half of the Russian combat vehicles losses are quite in depth, the same as all of their artillery losses, so holhing on defence will just elongate the attritional phase from 1-2 to 2-3 years.
Their rate of loss will go down but time is not on their side.
I would be careful with Perpetua's figures (including Ukrainian losses), as his team's standards for inclusion seem to be concerningly-low compared to the other two or three major pro-UA trackers.
My own calculations have consistently shown something like late 2026 as a deadline period for the Russian military's offensive capacity. Even the relatively-steep equipment losses taken over the past half-year are really comparable to the 2022 spring offensive or the 2023 winter campaign. So add at least 6 months to the 18-24 month projection.
Those figures on personnel losses are not realistic unless all wounded are included - but then, most wounded are not losses.
Regarding BTRs, they are still in production. According to this TopWar article from 2021, 40-50% of BTR-82 were new-build. New builds delivered in 2020 were 130. It is near-certain that new IFVs in 2024 (BMP-3, BTR-82, BMD-4) will reach at least 500, but possibly many more.
https://topwar.ru/180450-rezultaty-proizvodstva-btr-82am.html
I had only now time to read this text thouroughly. Thank you so very much. It helps me a lot to understand much better the development and perspectives of the war on the battlefields.
Thanks for the update. One note from an economist: despite the interest rate of the Russian central bank at 16% for a quarter, and above 10% since August last year, their inflation is still at around 7.5-8% level and does not seem to be slowing, even according to their own communications. This clearly indicates that the Russian economy is heated up. In normal circumstances we would expect a crash akin to Argentina, but they are postponing it by the "war keynesianism" (ie high military spending from the state budget). This is not sustainable, but further more implies they will be unable to significantly increase military production without some drastic economic measures (like in the 1930ties).