[BroJoeK]

BroJoeK #3,712: “Since the end of 2022, Russians have conquered another roughly 300 square miles of Ukraine, at a cost of circa 400,000 casualties.”

BeauBo: "Wow. That really puts it into perspective. No way that is sustainable."

Like everything else here, "sustainable" is a matter of definitions and perspectives.

Consider this:

• Second World War -- just Russia alone (not the entire USSR), lost about 14 million people, or roughly 2.5 million per year on average, over 5-1/2 years.
  That's almost 13% of Russia's population.
  The equivalent today would be about 18 million Russians dead over 5-1/5 years -- or around 3-1/4 million per year.

  Estimates of Russian casualties in Ukraine vary, with the highest number I've seen at around 800,000 total, suggesting perhaps 200,000 killed over 2-1/3 years or circa 85,000 per year.
  Lower estimates are maybe half that.

  So, my point is -- while Ukraine war deaths are Russia's highest since the Second World War, they are still orders of magnitude less that WWII.

  

• First World War -- which Russia lost -- Russia suffered about 3 million killed, or roughly 1 million per year.
  In today's equivalents, that would be roughly 2.4 million total, or around 800,000 killed, per year.
  So still, the Ukraine war is orders of magnitude less.

Looking at Russia's lost wars since 1900, we can compare:

1. Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) -- ~75,000 Russian deaths. Result: 1905 Revolution

2. First World War (1914-1917) -- ~3,000,000 Russian deaths. Result: Communist Revolution

3. Soviet-Finish War (1939-1940) -- ~200,000 Soviet deaths. Result: Nazi invasion of USSR

4. Russo-Afghan War (1979 - 1989) -- ~25,000 Soviet deaths. Result: Collapse of Soviet Union

I see no particular pattern, except that losses finally grew large enough to convince Russian/Soviet leadership their war must end.
The key was always: what were Russians prepared & able to suffer versus, what the wars forced them to.
Clearly, in the Russo-Japanese War and Afghanistan they just weren't ready for truly major efforts.

Finally, it's well worth remembering that,

• First World War, Russia's decision to surrender in 1917 was based on refusals of French, British and Americans to send enough military aid to keep Russia in the war.

• Second World War, the West sent Soviets massive volumes of aid which helped keep them in the fight despite unimaginable millions of deaths.

So the question today is whether CCP China, NoKo, & Iran will support Russia, the way the US & UK did in the Second World War.
If they do, we might expect Russia to fight on for a very long time indeed, despite unimaginable casualties.

Today's New Axis of Evil Dictators:

[BeauBo]

Kyiv Independent reports today on recent Russian casualty rates - highest of the war, so far:

“Russian losses in Ukraine reached “conflict highs” during May and June, the U.K. Defense Ministry reported on July 12.

In an intelligence report on X, the ministry said average daily Russian casualties – both killed and wounded – reached 1,262 and 1,163 in the two months, respectively.

“In total, Russia likely lost in excess of 70,000 personnel over the past two months,” the statement read.”

[BeauBo]

Of note with Soviet Union’s experience with high casualties in WWII, is that ethnic Ukrainians endured higher casualty rates than did ethnic Russians.

[Monterrosa-24]

Russian losses in this war include many skilled workers, IT personnel, and businessmen who fled the country causing a labor shortage and lowered production. According to Konstantine, the Russian blogger who fled to Tashkent, three million Russians have left since February of 2022.

The Ukrainians have already killed more Russians than the Afghans did. They got tired of that war, packed up, and went home. If Ukraine can keep killing plenty of Russians, they may get the same result.

[PIF]

Before WWII the Russian population stood at 196,716,000 (1941)

By 1991 it was 293,047,571

Currently it is 146,150,800 (January, 2024)

They cannot sustain the WWII loses now with the low population number, as well as the skilled labor losses.