Russia's 1.2M casualties in Ukraine dwarf all its conflicts since WW2
cnn.com
cnn.com
I guess that is true IF the following is true:
>“Russian military losses, of those killed and wounded, now exceed sustainable recruitment and replacement rates,” James Ford, Britain’s deputy ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said in a speech last week.
The well of humanity can't be bottomless, but I swear I've heard this sentiment years earlier in the war too. They're still fighting and throwing handfuls of troops at the front lines, seemingly carelessly.
Historically speaking Russian leadership's willingness to take massive casualties of their own with little if any political fallout has proven effective, sadly. Maybe WE can't imagine taking losses like this, but in Russia they seem more than willing.
All Russians joining the war after partial mobilization of the autumn of 2022 are doing this voluntarily. The West and Ukrainians managed to really piss off many Russians. It isn't Putin's war anymore and it isn't even the war of the whole Russia yet.
WE are happily enabling Ukrainians to take such losses.
> seemingly carelessly.
They are doing what works—which evidently it does, however ugly and cynical it looks. And Ukrainians do the same when they try to recapture. This is the face of attritional warfare in the age of drones and under pervasive surveillance. But you’re probably right—WE could not sustain such for long. One hopes.
> now exceed sustainable recruitment and replacement rates,
That’s on even days. On odd days these people will tell you that the Russia army has been all but rebuilt and is about to invade the Baltics.
> Meanwhile, battlefield casualties favor Ukraine by a 2.5- or 2-to-1 ratio.
Russia is 4–5 times bigger. So, even if these numbers were true, they would be bad news. Same with materiel—just check Oryx. For extra credit, look at the trends of losses. Far from good enough and getting worse.