this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
951 points (97.6% liked)
Ukraine
8301 readers
605 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam
- No content against Finnish law
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does anyone have a source about the Russian attrition rate? I can’t find one
They’re conservative about planes and attack helis but have enough. Money is good, oil good, cash reserves ok debt to GDP more than good. Workforce very big but affected
But still... They’re low on tanks, artillery shells, Combat experience, Air defence systems,
Russia as a whole is doing fine attrition wise but they’re equipment is being blown back 40 years. On top of that Ukrainians are doing very well and are cost effective. Russia spends multiple $ for every $ sent to Ukraine.
The decoys alone are costing Russia ~$1mil per, and they cost =/< $1k ea. Those are impressively effective numbers. 🤩🤘🏼
The Russians are liquidating the Soviet stockpile that was built while they were a global military superpower. They don't have the capacity to rebuild that arsenal. Russia is being taken off the world stage as a military power for at least three decades.
Sanctions are hurting them so badly that they are importing weapons from China (small arms, armor), Iran (drones) & North Korea (shells).
No, it is result of corruption. If sanctions truly hurt military budget, then Putin could not afford to import.
They are low on shells, tanks and AA. Combat experience is more than anyone would want.
They die before getting any. Newly mobilised soldiers are a massive portion of their army now.
It's worded in such a way as to be meaningless - half of what? The original number of Russian soldiers, the original number plus Wagner and other extra troops, the current number deployed with/without mercenaries? Plus Russia's numbers don't look like US numbers, don't quite look like Ukraines numbers.
That said heres the first source I found:
...
Those numbers refer to the current number of deployed and undeployed Russian soldiers plus mercenaries, which is clearly not the numbers the ad is using.
To be clear, I fully support Ukraine and fully support the US guaranteeing missile manufacturers that we will buy new missiles even if the war ends tomorrow to incentivise greater production. I just think the ad played with the numbers until they said what we want them to say.
Source for both quotes: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html
The over 1m stat is a bit of an exaggeration - the more accurate figure is closer to 750,000. See https://cepa.org/article/russias-military-manpower-crunch-will-worsen/
Charitably, 300,000 casualties would be ~40%. Of course it's still very good value for military spending...
Sounds legit. Last batch of IDs for families with dead soldiers is slightly more than 300k.
Sorry about the other answer being vague. The actual numbers are military secrets and we’ll have to wait for a leak to actually know.
Perun did an analysis a couple of weeks ago. In short, Russia is building new stuff, but the mix of losses show a fair bit of stockpile has been used. https://youtu.be/ctrtAwT2sgs