Posted on 04/07/2022 5:48:06 AM PDT by Red Badger
In four weeks of combat, Russia may have lost 25 percent of its initial attacking force. These casualties are not on the scale of World War II but are large compared with the relatively small size of the Russian military today. Although reinforcements and replacements can offset some of these casualties, the loss of trained troops will impair military operations and eventually have a political effect.
Russian losses to date are high. NATO estimates that Russia has lost between 7,000 and 15,000 soldiers. Wounded who cannot rapidly return to duty generally number about twice the number of dead. That would mean that Russia has lost between 21,000 and 45,000 troops in four weeks of conflict. To put that into perspective, Russia reported 14,400 killed through 10 years of war in Afghanistan.
The initial invasion force numbered about 190,000 troops. However, that included militias in the Donbas and security forces (Rosgvardiya) for occupation. Ground combat troops numbered about 140,000. Thus, Russia may have lost about a quarter of its initial combat force.
Russia has moved reinforcements and replacements into Ukraine to compensate for these losses, which will offset them to some degree. However, these reinforcements and replacements likely lack the training and experience of the early deployers, especially elite units like paratroopers. The loss of skilled troops and leaders will be felt in the conduct of tactical operations.
Russian forces are not large. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union maintained a military of about 3.5 million. That military is long gone. Today, Russia maintains a total military of about 900,000, of which 280,000 are in the army, according to the latest figures from the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Russia reformed its military after poor operational performance in the 2008 invasion of Georgia, where Russia won but with many tactical shortcomings that showed a lack of skill and training. The downsized military increased the proportion of volunteers (called “contract soldiers” in Russia) to about two-thirds, improved training, and streamlined the bloated officer corps.
Russia lacks a strong reserve force. In theory, former soldiers could be recalled to service, and Russia is likely doing some of that, but these soldiers receive no training or follow-up after their active service. Russia has tried to create reserve forces like those in NATO, where reservists are organized into units that train regularly, but such efforts have not made much headway.
To put the Russian force into perspective, the United States has an active-duty force of 1.3 million and organized, trained reserves of 800,000. Thus, the United States has about twice the trained personnel that Russia does.
To further put the Russian force into perspective, the United States sent about 540,000 troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. Total coalition forces numbered about 750,000. Russia is conducting this invasion on a shoestring.
Russia is sensitive to losses. Russia today is not the country of World War II (called the Great Patriotic War in Russia) that marched to victory over the bodies of its dead. In that conflict, the Soviet Union lost an estimated 10 million soldiers and another 14 million civilians but persevered through terrible losses and repeated battlefield setbacks to achieve ultimate victory. Today, an engaged public and organized mothers groups make casualties highly visible. The use of conscripts is particularly controversial because they are, in theory, not supposed to fight outside Russia proper. Russia may be an authoritarian regime, but it cannot suppress all dissent, just as the Soviet Union could not suppress discontent with the war in Afghanistan. Casualties will increase opposition to the war.
Commentators suspect that Putin is not getting objective advice about the war and thus may not fully appreciate the difficulty his forces are in. This is a common problem in authoritarian regimes where officials do not want to bring bad news to an all-powerful leader. However, eventually, battlefield realities will assert themselves. Likely a group of generals will agree among themselves that Putin must be made aware of battlefield circumstances before the army breaks from continuing casualties, physical exhaustion, dwindling supplies and munitions, and sinking morale. Bringing that message forward may be the push that convinces Putin to get serious about negotiations.
Mark F. Cancian is a senior adviser with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
Good morning! Welcome back to work! Had your coffee already, mentally sharp? On to your keyboard!
And the same people you trust have been LYING about war over that same time frame...have you read the Afghanistan Papers
OK...
Everything coming out of America is a lie.
It is impossible to have a serious discussion with someone you cannot take seriously.
Go back to your Q thread.
Did you read the Afghanistan Papers...yes or no?
Boy that’s a lot of sad & mad Moms, daughters and wives!
Enough for the ruskies to say enough?
We’ll see...
What are you my mother?
You spout idiocy. Go back to your Q Anon theories.
I cannot believe the amount of hatred towards the US on these forums these days. Jim Rob is going to be scratching his head wondering why donations are going to dry up. I guess he should take payments in Rubles.
Plus they hadn’t a clue that the Pakis and Indians were developing Nukes.
They also thought Trump was (NOT) a ruskie asset!
They also claimed ruskie misinformation on the now infamous Hunter laptop.
US intelligence is worthless and CORRUPT to the hilt!
There must be a way to ID the dead and let their mothers in Russia know.
—
Went the kids don’t return home, their mothers ID them.
By using the same outdated armor vulnerable to shoulder fired and drone fired anti-tank weapons.
—
No!
By using artillery* and infantry.
Snipers and booby traps are are real morale killer.
The goal is not to win a head to head battle but to keep them stressed out and moving them in the direction you want them to go.
Had your coffee already
—
He’s Russian and drinks tea.
The Afghanistan Papers are a set of interviews relating to the US war in Afghanistan prepared by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and published by The Washington Post in 2019 following a Freedom of Information Act request.[1][2][3] The documents reveal that high-ranking officials generally held the opinion that the war was unwinnable while keeping this view hidden from the public.[1][4][5][6] Due to the difficulty of creating objective metrics to demonstrate success, information was manipulated for the duration of the conflict.
Well that is funny right there because all the arm-chair generals here are prognosticating how Ukraine needs a lot of armor to press their counter-attack.
My guess is that many Russian battalions used in the initial invasion have reached the 40% casualty rate at which units begin to find ways to avoid offensive operations. I read yesterday that the Russians are taking some depleted units and recombining them with others, which won't help. There's also speculation that the attack on a Russian fuel depot a few days ago was actually carried out by Russian officers to conceal theft of fuel.
If the Russians simply throw new units together using even more raw recruits and worse equipment I do not expect their performance to improve, although if they throw enough mass together they may advance to try to cut off Ukrainian salients in the east. Even then, I strongly suspect they will advance only to have supply lines cut and be slowly ground down by Ukrainians as they have been.
There's nothing new about any of this: it's the same story since 1945-- US political leaders set goals far and above what can realistically be expected to be achieved given the military resources and ROE used, resulting in failure every time, with the exception of the Gulf war, where we fought for a limited goal with almost unlimited force and kept the treasonous press muzzled.
I think he was surprised that Ukrainian security would not back Yanukovych when Yanukovych ordered them to use force against the Maidan protesters a la Tiananmen. That made Yanukovych unable to find a safe haven from which to call in “fraternal assistance” from Russia.
This propaganda designed to keep the war goal. The goal is to turn what's left of Ukraine into Palestine and use it as a vehicle for perpetual insurgency against Russia. The loss or quality of the life the people there doesn't matter.
This war wouldn't be occurring if we hadn't fomented a revolution that caused an eight-year civil war in Ukraine and then encouraged the Ukrainians to reject the Minsk Agreement would have ended the war in Donbass.
Thanks. That’s very interesting.
L
To put that into perspective, Russia reported 14,400 killed through 10 years of war in Afghanistan.
To put that into perspective, Putin probably regards the Afghanistan war as "the good old days". Even if he didn't before, he probably does now.
And what has that got to do with anything?
Anyone with two brain cells could see that.
What has that got to do with casualty estimate calculations?
You hate America so much, it consumes you.
The number of wounded is more like four times the number killed, not two times; plus you need soldiers to get the wounded to the rear for treatment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.