Russia is also losing troops through desertion, which isn't captured by casualty figures. Less clearly, it seems as if some contract soldiers manage to get out at the end of their term, or else that the extension of their contracts is counted as a new enlistment.
We should never believe Russian stats or numbers without independent intel verification. And even then, as Phillips has noted before, the quality of personnel is declining. We know Russian cannot replenish its equipment already.
As somebody who is has Spanish family, I have seen this on the streets in subtle, but unmistakable ways in Madrid, Barcelona, and elsewhere. Spaniards support Ukraine.
The issue fundamentally is funding. Europe cannot stand on its own until it has a military complex that is independent of the US, including supplies / manufacturing. And that will take a lot of money.
There are plenty of special interest groups that vastly increased their incomes once the peace dividend became available, EU governments will have to take a hard look at cutting such funding or blow up the debt blocks.
Neither will be politically attractive, even if Merz led the way in FRG re same.
If I understood Macron's speech at the Munich Summit, he was calling for Europe to truly unite and form a cohesive unit that could collectively maintain a larger force to fight Russia. No Country should be an island we need to bind ourselves in a way we have not before. Do you think this is possible, for the European Countries to do this?
You can do this: In the USA, it's taken *months* of daily and weekly phone calls or emails to our district and state's members of Congress to express our demands. Their staffs keep count of these "votes" for and against. It's finally boiling upward, like the mercury in a thermometer. Our party's leaders are showing some spine at last. Enlist your friends, neighbors, co-workers... Call your MPs!
Problem in Europe is that none of the great three powers wishes to bow for the other. France and Germany share a bothered past and cooperation remains difficult, different languages, cultures and people. And the UK is a soul asylum on its own. We're now in a situation where we should strive to make defense standards less complex, but here we are with Germany, France and Spain failing at developing a sixth gen fighter together while the UK, Italy and Japan work on another prototype. The European South is still stuck in Plato's cave while the North is trying to find a light. It's maddening. But hey, that's how it's done here in Europe. We're kinda nuts and I love it. I'm not so thrilled either with these MAGA 7th and 8th generation swampers telling us what to do in Europe. Perhaps it's better to focus on the things that matter, the EU money for Ukraine is invested in 150 Gripens and 100 Rafales. No F35's there and that's already a positive sign for the future of European defense. Another positive note, due to Starlink and Telegram gate and the weather, there are several Ukrainian counterattacks all over the front line. And it's costing Russia dearly. The Russians still fight like Andrei Bolkonsky at the Battle of Austerlitz. This Moscovian death by a thousand cuts tactics is certainly worth mentioning. Ukraine is taking the initiative and that's probably the best news for 2026.
Funny you should say this, my observations have been the political, economic, and military center of have moved away from France Germany UK to the Nordics, Baltics and SW to Spain and Portugal who have incredibly fast growing economies. I also think we forget about Canada as a major player in Europe now.
I think if Germany and Poland got together with the Nordics that would be a big issue.
I don't think that would work.
Europe is not half as united as US thinks it is. That is why we react calm because "we have no clue what the others will do"
So if "Germany and Poland got together with the Nordics" it is very likely some join and the others get together; basically splitting Europe in 2 defense centers which may even attack each other.
The number $12 trillion has been floating around. It has to be that unbelievably high to make the "deal" look like an opportunity trump just can't pass up--because maga.
P.S. Lindsey Graham had better give trump the state award he got from Pres. Zelensky as soon as he gets home. Trump doesn't like it when other people receive prizes.
I thought the last chat with John Sipher was exceptional. Hope he will be a recurring presence.
Marc Polymeropolous was one of the few voices on MSNBC who one sensed actually wanted Russia to be defeated. I say "was" because all of the U.S. cable TV stations lost interest in the Ukraine war after Trump took office. Polymeropolous seemingly has entered the witness protection program. He certainly was disappeared from "Morning Joe." An update on his views is long overdue.
I want to repost a link to Lindsey Hilsum's brief recap of the Munich conference. Her analysis is trenchant and reassuring; she claims most attendees found Rubio to be J.D. Vance with a bit of diplomatic polish.
Loved the interview with JS, will definitely do it again. He is a man of real integrity who has received alot of crap for standing up for what he believes. Same for MP
Excellent conversation. Very much to the point of what we're discussing here. While it depends on the accuracy of the speaker's (Lindsey Hilsum) observations, this is a much more optimistic take. Let's hope.
I'm very impressed by her sharp observations, dozens of them. I trust her because she also notes that the ppl at the conference with higher gov/institutional positions were more keen to believe Rubio's bullshit. She wasn't sampling in a silo.
I was fascinated by her catching Rubio idealizing the missionaries in his native Cuba. Rubio is not just a man of the !920s or 1950s, he's down with William Howard Taft's view of white people civilizing their "little brown brothers" in the Philippines in 1901. Rubio may be more of a true MAGA reactionary than I suspected.
As absurd as it sounds I have had several conversations with Russians who genuinely believe that Russia is winning with a 10:1 casualty ratio in their favour and that Ukraine has suffered over 1 million casualties. When I ask for a source for these claims they just go quiet.
Well, I don't know if twitter is banned in Russia... generally, the vatniks use VK, telegram or for most soviet boomers, nothing but Kremlin TV all day...
While he said twitter, the same would apply to any and all social media channels. And the Russians, like the US now, have plenty of trolls and talking heads spreading mis and disinformation. And people lapping it up. Of course, you probably already realize this, so regard my comment as for the record.
Rubio was at the MSC to clean up Vance's and Hegseth’s mess, just as Tom Homan went to Minnesota to clean up Greg Bovino's mess. Note that very little changed on the ground in Minneapolis after Homan arrived.
Phillips is exactly right. With bad approval numbers getting worse and resistance gaining strength, the trump regime is making faux-conciliatory gestures across the board to weaken opposition. Don't buy it. The pro-democracy movement in the U.S. understands the Battle of Minneapolis is just the first in the war of 2026. Trump and his bag of perfectly coiffed liars are as vicious and dangerous as ever.
I had first thought that the US democratic delegation with Senator Kelly, AOC et al trying to reassure Europe that trump too will pass and we’ll be getting back to the good old days of transatlantic alliances, would be wholly positive. But in the context of soothing the dependency addicts in the EU, that would be bad. Europe has to face that it is at war with Russia, Ukraine is the front line and they have to do what it takes to win. The best the US democrats can do for the next 3 years is slow trump down from helping Putin smash Ukraine. That’s it.
I think things will look very different if the democrats take either or both houses of congress. The country is not pro Putin and democrats can force a lot of votes to expose trumps pro Putin policies. There may even be veto proof majorities if enough gopers begin to treat trump like the lame duck that he is
No one knows who will succeed trump in the White House. The Electoral College tilts toward Republicans. Even if Democrats prevail, a strong Europe benefits the whole alliance.
And even if the Dems prevail in the next US presidential election, it seems to be quite systemic in US politics that there are two major parties with government power oscillating between them. In the absence of very profound reforms that would enable a political system with more than two major political parties, I don’t see how it could credibly be prevented that at some point during the next couple of election cycles, another representative of that political part which currently is fully trumpist would be elected to the White House.
“A significant number of people reached out or said that they believe that the reaction to the speech was more polite than laudatory and that it did not change anything materially. In other words, that European leaders would not be fooled by the gelatinous ooze of friendship with which Rubio smeared them.”
I’d suggest that the speech must be interpreted by totally ignoring the “gelatinous ooze of friendship” aspect (as the current US government is very clearly not ever going to be a true friend to any democratic country in Europe), and look at what the speech was intended to communicate apart from that.
From that perspective, the speech was IMO full-throated advocacy for fascism, complete with a mendacious history narrative and with fawning adoration for the cult leader of the particular version of fascism that is currently in control of the US government. Not all that different in substance from how Putin advocates for acceptance of his version of authoritarian imperialism.
My take was the speech was full throated white Christian nationalism. Ironic, considering it was given by the son of Cuban refugees to the U.S. who represents a nation founded by immigrants, Africans and Native Americans.
Yes. Even if the trumpists, just like some ideologically similar movements in Europe including AfD in Germany, absolutely don’t care about any really Christianity-related aspects of Christian nationalism. They just use words of Christian nationalism as a tactic for seeking attention and power. Not that it would have anything to do with actual Christianity if they were sincere in their Christian nationalism: what is called Christian nationalism is totally unrelated to, and in fact very much opposed to, actually believing and following the teachings of Jesus Christ!
A huge problem hindering the close out of the War of Russian Aggression is that an honest broker does not exist to push the parties farther than they want to move. The U.S. certainly is not that broker, even though Secretary Rubio, in the speech above, thinks it is. The U.S. is playing favorites here, and, most importantly, it does not have the trust of the Ukrainians, so it can never be a neutral third-party mediator. The absence of a third party is especially critical given the existential claims Russia is making over Ukraine. There does not appear to be a George Mitchell on the horizon, and unlike the negotiations over the Troubles, the conditions do not exist for productive discussions in Ukraine. Russia’s claims of sovereignty over Ukraine must give way; otherwise, Ukraine gets reduced to a vassal state.
I have a bit more faith in Europe than you do. The measure I use is twofold. First is total financial commitment to Ukraine, and second how much of that promise is to be enacted in the immediate future. Europe is gradually realizing that Putin is a clear and present danger--not some dark cloud hovering in an unspecified future. And Europe is being taught by the US in a rapid series of actions how undependable it is with Trump ostensibly at the helm. It is just possible that Rubio still commands some good will that does not extend to the country as a whole. However, Europe would be acting as an unmitigated ass if it took Rubio's talk as an opiate. The danger is now. And it is great.
Agree Alexandra about the money. That is important. My worry is that the money is more about maintaining the status quo, then helping Ukraine win and bringing in change. Hope I am wrong!
I would agree. The most crying contradiction this past week was, on one hand Zelenskyy welcoming the first Ukrainian drone rolling off a German production line and on the other, the hapless Lindsey Graham saying in Munich how important it would be to provide Ukraine with Tomahawks!
How many European participants will have stifled a laugh at hearing such rubbish ?
The Ukrainian advantage in inflicting casualties v. recruitment, by yr statistics, appears to be entirely attributable to a massive drop in Russian recruitment. Ukraine usually seems to inflict about 1000 casualties a day. It got up to 1500 this year during the period when Russia was trying to make a massive push against Pokrosk but now has leveled off. It would be helpful if you could include in yr column the monthly Russian recruiting figures because that’s a number I haven’t see anywhere else. If it stays at present levels you would think Putins brilliant three day military operation will coming to a swift conclusion.
Given the dire economic situation in russia I find it interesting that what I understand to be still current financial inducements to sign up seem to be losing their power. One might have expected the increasing number of financially distressed russian men may have kept recruitment high. Perhaps they have exhausted the number of men prepared to take very substantial risks to life and limb if the pay is right. Presumably the number is finite.
I suspect that the Ukrainian estimate of numbers of eliminated russians may be an underestimate. It's easy to imagine a russian soldier killed by artillery and not being captured by a reconnaisance drone. Similarly given the huge size of the russian army, there must be deaths to illnesses and accidents in the rear that the Ukrainians can't reasonably expect to have detected.....unless they have a spy in the branch of the russian military that records these things.
I see the glass as at least half full. Some of the reasons:
1. The explicit Ukrainian push toward 50,000 Russian casualties a month
2. Greenland
3. Joint weapons production in several European countries
4. Strong European financial support for PURL.
5. The deal between France and India to supply Raffale fighters to India and to build them there.
6. Japan
7. Zelensky stating clearly that Ukraine will not cede Donbas
And here is a story that may be relevant: some decades ago Europe decided to build a fusion research machine, the Joint European Tokamak. Then they proceeded to talk and talk and talk, actually doing almost nothing. The joke was that the project was actually the Joint European Talkamak. But eventually they converged, acted, and built what proved to be a very productive research machine. To my eyes, we are now seeing increasing convergence and action on Ukraine.
Phillips, can you help put those numbers in context please, as I'm struggling to get my head around them?
A quick Google around says that 30,000 men equals 2-3 US Army Divisions (10k-15k men per Division, depending on configuration).
So, the Russians are losing 2-3 Divisions worth PER MONTH through KIA/WIA.
But that's probably not right either, since the "tooth-to-tail" ratio of a modern army is normally about 1:2, so 1/3 front line combatants, 2/3 support/logistics/HQ etc roles.
So, granted that the Russian Army barely qualifies as a "modern army" let's be generous and call that 50/50. So, we can double that 2-3 to 4-6 Divisions taken off the board (ie "rendered combat ineffective") if we assume that the majority of those killed/wounded are those front-line troops.
A quick chat with ChatGPT tells me that as a rule of thumb a Division would be rendered "combat ineffective" after sustaining about 30% losses of total Divisional strength, so it's probably fair to say that more Divisions would be affected since you don't have to kill all the combatants to render it ineffective. I'm at risk of double counting here because I already focused on front-line casualties in the previous step and it's fair to assume that the "30% of divisional losses" would be concentrated in that front line, so grossing up that 4-6 to 13-20 Divisions rendered "combat ineffective" through losses is almost certainly wrong but it's fair to say that 4-6 Divisions rendered "combat ineffective" is a conservative estimate.
So, let's put that into perspective... The entire US Army fields 11 Divisions.
So, even at 4-6 Divisions the Russians are losing combat effective divisions equivalent to THE ENTIRE US ARMY in 2-3 months.
It is "insane". And, while long-term it can't be sustained, Russia has so far managed to sustain the effort. Any conclusion otherwise is somewhat premature. There are several positive indicators though - the most obvious is Ukraine's increased abilities striking Russia behind the front lines. This is a strong indication that the losses DO have an impact.
"Ukraine’s homework is to create a situation of long-term and stable positional stalemate."
So, kill more Russians than are recruited.... positive signs then.
Presumably this will start eating into the strategic reserves of Russian Combined Arms Armies, making a breakthrough possible? Or maybe that ship has sailed with the mass deployment of drones.
Could it force the Russian armed forces to adapt their tactics to reduce losses?
Russia is also losing troops through desertion, which isn't captured by casualty figures. Less clearly, it seems as if some contract soldiers manage to get out at the end of their term, or else that the extension of their contracts is counted as a new enlistment.
So, they may already be falling short
Indeed that is true. Plus corruption might inflate numbers as well
We should never believe Russian stats or numbers without independent intel verification. And even then, as Phillips has noted before, the quality of personnel is declining. We know Russian cannot replenish its equipment already.
Vehicle replenishment is in a crisis for sure. Sadly they can acquire a lot of UAVs
As a European, I so wish that your analyses and (de facto) warnings to European leaders would lead to action.
The cow towing to Trump’sUS and pussyfooting around Putin’s Russia just needs to end.
What conversations do we need to have on this continent to finally be counted?
II think European leaders need to understand that their populations actually understand the risk and want action.
As somebody who is has Spanish family, I have seen this on the streets in subtle, but unmistakable ways in Madrid, Barcelona, and elsewhere. Spaniards support Ukraine.
it is goverments who wish not to rock the boat and remain the status quoe that are at fault
The issue fundamentally is funding. Europe cannot stand on its own until it has a military complex that is independent of the US, including supplies / manufacturing. And that will take a lot of money.
There are plenty of special interest groups that vastly increased their incomes once the peace dividend became available, EU governments will have to take a hard look at cutting such funding or blow up the debt blocks.
Neither will be politically attractive, even if Merz led the way in FRG re same.
All true--though waiting will just make it more expensive
If I understood Macron's speech at the Munich Summit, he was calling for Europe to truly unite and form a cohesive unit that could collectively maintain a larger force to fight Russia. No Country should be an island we need to bind ourselves in a way we have not before. Do you think this is possible, for the European Countries to do this?
You can do this: In the USA, it's taken *months* of daily and weekly phone calls or emails to our district and state's members of Congress to express our demands. Their staffs keep count of these "votes" for and against. It's finally boiling upward, like the mercury in a thermometer. Our party's leaders are showing some spine at last. Enlist your friends, neighbors, co-workers... Call your MPs!
Problem in Europe is that none of the great three powers wishes to bow for the other. France and Germany share a bothered past and cooperation remains difficult, different languages, cultures and people. And the UK is a soul asylum on its own. We're now in a situation where we should strive to make defense standards less complex, but here we are with Germany, France and Spain failing at developing a sixth gen fighter together while the UK, Italy and Japan work on another prototype. The European South is still stuck in Plato's cave while the North is trying to find a light. It's maddening. But hey, that's how it's done here in Europe. We're kinda nuts and I love it. I'm not so thrilled either with these MAGA 7th and 8th generation swampers telling us what to do in Europe. Perhaps it's better to focus on the things that matter, the EU money for Ukraine is invested in 150 Gripens and 100 Rafales. No F35's there and that's already a positive sign for the future of European defense. Another positive note, due to Starlink and Telegram gate and the weather, there are several Ukrainian counterattacks all over the front line. And it's costing Russia dearly. The Russians still fight like Andrei Bolkonsky at the Battle of Austerlitz. This Moscovian death by a thousand cuts tactics is certainly worth mentioning. Ukraine is taking the initiative and that's probably the best news for 2026.
I think if Germany and Poland got together with the Nordics--they could drive this ahead. But it would require some real coordination.
Funny you should say this, my observations have been the political, economic, and military center of have moved away from France Germany UK to the Nordics, Baltics and SW to Spain and Portugal who have incredibly fast growing economies. I also think we forget about Canada as a major player in Europe now.
I think if Germany and Poland got together with the Nordics that would be a big issue.
I don't think that would work.
Europe is not half as united as US thinks it is. That is why we react calm because "we have no clue what the others will do"
So if "Germany and Poland got together with the Nordics" it is very likely some join and the others get together; basically splitting Europe in 2 defense centers which may even attack each other.
"we’re going to continue to do everything we can to play this role of bringing this war to an end"
Well, that is true. By supporting Pax Moscova, Russian colonialism.
That seems to be the plan
Yes. "Play this role" so we can bring home the grift to trump before the losses in the midterms tie our hands.
If Trump bullies Ukraine into a deal, I bet the payoff would be massive
The number $12 trillion has been floating around. It has to be that unbelievably high to make the "deal" look like an opportunity trump just can't pass up--because maga.
P.S. Lindsey Graham had better give trump the state award he got from Pres. Zelensky as soon as he gets home. Trump doesn't like it when other people receive prizes.
I thought the last chat with John Sipher was exceptional. Hope he will be a recurring presence.
Marc Polymeropolous was one of the few voices on MSNBC who one sensed actually wanted Russia to be defeated. I say "was" because all of the U.S. cable TV stations lost interest in the Ukraine war after Trump took office. Polymeropolous seemingly has entered the witness protection program. He certainly was disappeared from "Morning Joe." An update on his views is long overdue.
I want to repost a link to Lindsey Hilsum's brief recap of the Munich conference. Her analysis is trenchant and reassuring; she claims most attendees found Rubio to be J.D. Vance with a bit of diplomatic polish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgy3nqyVmcM
Thanks for the link Richard, will check it out.
Loved the interview with JS, will definitely do it again. He is a man of real integrity who has received alot of crap for standing up for what he believes. Same for MP
Do watch the Lindsay Hilsum clip linked above. If she's a good observer, this is a much more optimistic behind-the-scenes view.
Excellent conversation. Very much to the point of what we're discussing here. While it depends on the accuracy of the speaker's (Lindsey Hilsum) observations, this is a much more optimistic take. Let's hope.
I'm very impressed by her sharp observations, dozens of them. I trust her because she also notes that the ppl at the conference with higher gov/institutional positions were more keen to believe Rubio's bullshit. She wasn't sampling in a silo.
I was fascinated by her catching Rubio idealizing the missionaries in his native Cuba. Rubio is not just a man of the !920s or 1950s, he's down with William Howard Taft's view of white people civilizing their "little brown brothers" in the Philippines in 1901. Rubio may be more of a true MAGA reactionary than I suspected.
As absurd as it sounds I have had several conversations with Russians who genuinely believe that Russia is winning with a 10:1 casualty ratio in their favour and that Ukraine has suffered over 1 million casualties. When I ask for a source for these claims they just go quiet.
The source is Russian twitter trolls--and too many people lap it up
Well, I don't know if twitter is banned in Russia... generally, the vatniks use VK, telegram or for most soviet boomers, nothing but Kremlin TV all day...
While he said twitter, the same would apply to any and all social media channels. And the Russians, like the US now, have plenty of trolls and talking heads spreading mis and disinformation. And people lapping it up. Of course, you probably already realize this, so regard my comment as for the record.
Rubio was at the MSC to clean up Vance's and Hegseth’s mess, just as Tom Homan went to Minnesota to clean up Greg Bovino's mess. Note that very little changed on the ground in Minneapolis after Homan arrived.
Phillips is exactly right. With bad approval numbers getting worse and resistance gaining strength, the trump regime is making faux-conciliatory gestures across the board to weaken opposition. Don't buy it. The pro-democracy movement in the U.S. understands the Battle of Minneapolis is just the first in the war of 2026. Trump and his bag of perfectly coiffed liars are as vicious and dangerous as ever.
Faux-conciliatory is right. Trump wants to keep some leverage over Europeans, and just yelling at them was not working.
I had first thought that the US democratic delegation with Senator Kelly, AOC et al trying to reassure Europe that trump too will pass and we’ll be getting back to the good old days of transatlantic alliances, would be wholly positive. But in the context of soothing the dependency addicts in the EU, that would be bad. Europe has to face that it is at war with Russia, Ukraine is the front line and they have to do what it takes to win. The best the US democrats can do for the next 3 years is slow trump down from helping Putin smash Ukraine. That’s it.
I think things will look very different if the democrats take either or both houses of congress. The country is not pro Putin and democrats can force a lot of votes to expose trumps pro Putin policies. There may even be veto proof majorities if enough gopers begin to treat trump like the lame duck that he is
will they even attempt that
No one knows who will succeed trump in the White House. The Electoral College tilts toward Republicans. Even if Democrats prevail, a strong Europe benefits the whole alliance.
And even if the Dems prevail in the next US presidential election, it seems to be quite systemic in US politics that there are two major parties with government power oscillating between them. In the absence of very profound reforms that would enable a political system with more than two major political parties, I don’t see how it could credibly be prevented that at some point during the next couple of election cycles, another representative of that political part which currently is fully trumpist would be elected to the White House.
“A significant number of people reached out or said that they believe that the reaction to the speech was more polite than laudatory and that it did not change anything materially. In other words, that European leaders would not be fooled by the gelatinous ooze of friendship with which Rubio smeared them.”
I’d suggest that the speech must be interpreted by totally ignoring the “gelatinous ooze of friendship” aspect (as the current US government is very clearly not ever going to be a true friend to any democratic country in Europe), and look at what the speech was intended to communicate apart from that.
From that perspective, the speech was IMO full-throated advocacy for fascism, complete with a mendacious history narrative and with fawning adoration for the cult leader of the particular version of fascism that is currently in control of the US government. Not all that different in substance from how Putin advocates for acceptance of his version of authoritarian imperialism.
Glad you pointed out the "gelatinous ooze" line--I liked that image.
Yes, the speech was full throated Trump authoritarianism
My take was the speech was full throated white Christian nationalism. Ironic, considering it was given by the son of Cuban refugees to the U.S. who represents a nation founded by immigrants, Africans and Native Americans.
Slava Ukraini!
Yes. Even if the trumpists, just like some ideologically similar movements in Europe including AfD in Germany, absolutely don’t care about any really Christianity-related aspects of Christian nationalism. They just use words of Christian nationalism as a tactic for seeking attention and power. Not that it would have anything to do with actual Christianity if they were sincere in their Christian nationalism: what is called Christian nationalism is totally unrelated to, and in fact very much opposed to, actually believing and following the teachings of Jesus Christ!
100%
jut look at his itenery after munic it tells all
A huge problem hindering the close out of the War of Russian Aggression is that an honest broker does not exist to push the parties farther than they want to move. The U.S. certainly is not that broker, even though Secretary Rubio, in the speech above, thinks it is. The U.S. is playing favorites here, and, most importantly, it does not have the trust of the Ukrainians, so it can never be a neutral third-party mediator. The absence of a third party is especially critical given the existential claims Russia is making over Ukraine. There does not appear to be a George Mitchell on the horizon, and unlike the negotiations over the Troubles, the conditions do not exist for productive discussions in Ukraine. Russia’s claims of sovereignty over Ukraine must give way; otherwise, Ukraine gets reduced to a vassal state.
Exactly right. The US is trying to pretend that Ukraine can count on it--when it clearly cannot.
I have a bit more faith in Europe than you do. The measure I use is twofold. First is total financial commitment to Ukraine, and second how much of that promise is to be enacted in the immediate future. Europe is gradually realizing that Putin is a clear and present danger--not some dark cloud hovering in an unspecified future. And Europe is being taught by the US in a rapid series of actions how undependable it is with Trump ostensibly at the helm. It is just possible that Rubio still commands some good will that does not extend to the country as a whole. However, Europe would be acting as an unmitigated ass if it took Rubio's talk as an opiate. The danger is now. And it is great.
Agree Alexandra about the money. That is important. My worry is that the money is more about maintaining the status quo, then helping Ukraine win and bringing in change. Hope I am wrong!
If you are right then things are very dark indeed. What on earth is Europe playing at when Putin remains on a war footing and has Chinese support?
I would agree. The most crying contradiction this past week was, on one hand Zelenskyy welcoming the first Ukrainian drone rolling off a German production line and on the other, the hapless Lindsey Graham saying in Munich how important it would be to provide Ukraine with Tomahawks!
How many European participants will have stifled a laugh at hearing such rubbish ?
The Ukrainian advantage in inflicting casualties v. recruitment, by yr statistics, appears to be entirely attributable to a massive drop in Russian recruitment. Ukraine usually seems to inflict about 1000 casualties a day. It got up to 1500 this year during the period when Russia was trying to make a massive push against Pokrosk but now has leveled off. It would be helpful if you could include in yr column the monthly Russian recruiting figures because that’s a number I haven’t see anywhere else. If it stays at present levels you would think Putins brilliant three day military operation will coming to a swift conclusion.
Thats right--which is why we need to be cautious and see if the recruitment drop continues and is not a short term phenomenon.
I have never ‘tweeted’ on Twitter, but l love your tweet from yesterday. Perfect.
Thanks Laura
Given the dire economic situation in russia I find it interesting that what I understand to be still current financial inducements to sign up seem to be losing their power. One might have expected the increasing number of financially distressed russian men may have kept recruitment high. Perhaps they have exhausted the number of men prepared to take very substantial risks to life and limb if the pay is right. Presumably the number is finite.
I suspect that the Ukrainian estimate of numbers of eliminated russians may be an underestimate. It's easy to imagine a russian soldier killed by artillery and not being captured by a reconnaisance drone. Similarly given the huge size of the russian army, there must be deaths to illnesses and accidents in the rear that the Ukrainians can't reasonably expect to have detected.....unless they have a spy in the branch of the russian military that records these things.
Ultimately you cant spend it if youre dead--so that could be making them less persuasive!
I see the glass as at least half full. Some of the reasons:
1. The explicit Ukrainian push toward 50,000 Russian casualties a month
2. Greenland
3. Joint weapons production in several European countries
4. Strong European financial support for PURL.
5. The deal between France and India to supply Raffale fighters to India and to build them there.
6. Japan
7. Zelensky stating clearly that Ukraine will not cede Donbas
And here is a story that may be relevant: some decades ago Europe decided to build a fusion research machine, the Joint European Tokamak. Then they proceeded to talk and talk and talk, actually doing almost nothing. The joke was that the project was actually the Joint European Talkamak. But eventually they converged, acted, and built what proved to be a very productive research machine. To my eyes, we are now seeing increasing convergence and action on Ukraine.
I hope you are right Paul. I think there need to be structures put in place, so far I do not see them. Maybe they are being kept hidden....
Phillips, can you help put those numbers in context please, as I'm struggling to get my head around them?
A quick Google around says that 30,000 men equals 2-3 US Army Divisions (10k-15k men per Division, depending on configuration).
So, the Russians are losing 2-3 Divisions worth PER MONTH through KIA/WIA.
But that's probably not right either, since the "tooth-to-tail" ratio of a modern army is normally about 1:2, so 1/3 front line combatants, 2/3 support/logistics/HQ etc roles.
So, granted that the Russian Army barely qualifies as a "modern army" let's be generous and call that 50/50. So, we can double that 2-3 to 4-6 Divisions taken off the board (ie "rendered combat ineffective") if we assume that the majority of those killed/wounded are those front-line troops.
A quick chat with ChatGPT tells me that as a rule of thumb a Division would be rendered "combat ineffective" after sustaining about 30% losses of total Divisional strength, so it's probably fair to say that more Divisions would be affected since you don't have to kill all the combatants to render it ineffective. I'm at risk of double counting here because I already focused on front-line casualties in the previous step and it's fair to assume that the "30% of divisional losses" would be concentrated in that front line, so grossing up that 4-6 to 13-20 Divisions rendered "combat ineffective" through losses is almost certainly wrong but it's fair to say that 4-6 Divisions rendered "combat ineffective" is a conservative estimate.
So, let's put that into perspective... The entire US Army fields 11 Divisions.
So, even at 4-6 Divisions the Russians are losing combat effective divisions equivalent to THE ENTIRE US ARMY in 2-3 months.
That's... insane...
Indeed, the Russians lost the equivalent of the entire combat force of the US army a few times over since 2022. Its not sustainable.
It is "insane". And, while long-term it can't be sustained, Russia has so far managed to sustain the effort. Any conclusion otherwise is somewhat premature. There are several positive indicators though - the most obvious is Ukraine's increased abilities striking Russia behind the front lines. This is a strong indication that the losses DO have an impact.
"Ukraine’s homework is to create a situation of long-term and stable positional stalemate."
So, kill more Russians than are recruited.... positive signs then.
Presumably this will start eating into the strategic reserves of Russian Combined Arms Armies, making a breakthrough possible? Or maybe that ship has sailed with the mass deployment of drones.
Could it force the Russian armed forces to adapt their tactics to reduce losses?
I was also struck by the similarities between what he was saying, and the implications of the casualty figures. Notable.
Seems like a mini counter offensive is happening now in Zaporizhzhia Oblast around Huliaipole. Ever since musk turned off starlink for the russians.