The war is getting ever deadlier, probably for both sides, but especially for Russia. There are now stories about Russian attacks that are completely without armored equipment. So Ukraine can defend against it with just machine guns!!

Hopefully we are nearing the end of Russia, together with a dwindling economy, their capability to continue the war also dwindles, and so does the Russian federation.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

How can Russia run out of ammunition? I thought they have like 10 times the stocks Ukraine did. Have they just been wasting it?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What are you referring to?

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There are now stories about Russian attacks that are completely without armored equipment. So Ukraine can defend against it with just machine guns!!

They were producing 3 times more than US and Europe combined for the war according to CNN in 2024 March.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Armor <> Amunition

[–] atro_city@fedia.io -2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

So because they have no armor Ukrainians don't have to fear shelling, tanks, drones, planes and so on? They're going to shoot down missiles with machine guns?

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

This seems like some kind of logical short circuit? An army without any armour at all can still have heaps of artillery, drones, planes, missiles, etc.

Russia running low on armour means exactly that: They're running low on armour.

There's plenty of evidence suggesting they're running low on other things as well, but that's not the point being made here. The shortage of armour is especially significant because it means russian assaults become less effective and more costly (read: more dead russians per assault).

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Ukraine keeps hitting munition stockpiles and have noticed substantial drops in shellings. They've also been taking out jets and drone factories, so it's all less overall.

But while those things can still inflict a lot of damage and do, you still need that armor to move the front lines up.

Nearly all the damage ukraine does is with drones, but those drones still need people to support and hold positions and a critical part of doing that is armor.

No armor means harder to do assaults and harder to defend positions.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ukrainian soldiers don't generally need to fear missiles, because Russia use those against civilian targets.
But I like how you try to play arrogant, when you can't even tell the difference between ammo and armor.
Usually I block people like you, but you are funny. 🤣

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 0 points 3 weeks ago

I'm arrogant? You're seriously saying "armor != ammunition". How is that not being arrogant? Everybody knows they aren't the same.

You're claiming that Ukraine can just defend with machine guns, but obviously that isn't true, which is what I'm pointing out, but you then just make a statement that doesn't do anything to add validity to your point.

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

They are not short of ammunition, although their advanced missile stocks may be unclear.

Their stocks of war machinery is in jeopardy as they are less able to leverage previously existing stocks, and now have to rely primarily on what they can build/repair.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Something that caught my eye here: It's estimated that russia has about 600 000 troops in Ukraine. If we're generous, that's maybe 300 000 frontline troops (see table 9). At 30 000 casualties per month, that means 10 % of the russian frontline troops become casualties every month, which is absolutely insane.

If 50 % of the casualties return to the frontline (generous), this means that half of the frontline troops need to be replaced every 10 months. Russia isn't even making progress, and hasn't for quite a while. This kind of casualty rate is very clearly not sustainable for them. If recruitment numbers start dropping even a little bit, their frontline units are likely to become combat ineffective within just a couple of months.

I hadn't looked at the numbers this closely in a while, but it seems very clear to me that the russian army is just barely holding it together at this point. If (when) their recruitment pool dries up, they'll only be able to hold for maybe six months before their frontline units are too depleted to hold the line anymore, and their ability to conduct assaults would dwindle even before that.

Here's to hoping russians figure out that becoming a frontline troop gives them a 70 % chance of becoming a casualty within a year, and that they stop signing up to be gunned down soon...

[–] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago

It's a little uneven because they seem to basically rotate the new people in for suicide missions in small groups. So there's still a pool of people farther in the rear not getting hit at such high rates.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

That's a very good summary of the situation, and AFAIK they have almost twice the combatants they had in the beginning.
But the quality is decreasing on everything, soldiers have less training, food and ammo supplies are failing, and equipment quantity and quality are both deteriorating.
There are also rumors Russia has had increasing problems mobilizing soldiers for months. So last year Russia doubled the bonus!

Maybe I see what I want to see, but it looks like it's going very very badly for Russia already.

[–] doo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Indeed, they already make virtually no progress, the equipment losses have shifted to old stuff. The only "problem" is that the collapse will be sudden, so we cannot tell when exactly it will happen. There's hope that we're actually close to the Ukrainian victory. Maybe even this year already.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Exactly! What this means is essentially that once the russians start cracking, it's likely to be catastrophic. If recruitment stopped tomorrow, they would last a couple months at best. The only thing keeping the russian army going at this point seems to be 30 000 fresh "soldiers" being sent to die each month.

It can only be a matter of time before the general public starts realising that very few of those that sign up actually come back at all.

[–] doo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

Don't put high hopes on the general public there. Soviet union was very good at brainwashing and propaganda. With the new tools and several decades to develop and use them, putler's team brought that to a completely different level.

I hear a lot of stories of Ukrainians giving up on talking to their relatives in ruzzia, because all they hear back from them is denial and propaganda.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 10 points 3 weeks ago

For comparison: That's currently about half the casualty rate of Germany and its allies over the course of WW1.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

160,000 families lost their sons. That’s sad. When do you think the people of Russia will turn on Putin? He can’t be that popular. He’s just a corrupt dictator whose legacy is going to be just another shitstain on history. I stand with Ukraine but I just can’t understand how Putin hasn’t been turned on by his people yet.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Once an authoritarian state reaches a certain degree of power, they're no longer vulnerable to their own populations. They just have too much control over the information, domestic security, economy, etc. Hypothetically you can imagine: if everyone who stands up gets their head cut off, and that goes on for 500 years, this will create a very different sort of population than we are accustomed to.

At that point they can only really be toppled by a foreign power or an uprising from their own elites. The peasants are simply no longer a factor.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Sad news for the future of America and the world as well with the rise of facism

[–] doo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

In addition to other comment, first he's been their "elected" supreme leader for so long, that a lot of young people never knew anything different. It's like domestic violence, if a child is being regularly hit and so all his friends, the child learns that this is how things should be. Second, by completely controlling media putler created and maintains political apathy (it was already strong in ussr), so even if they don't like something, they know very well that there's nothing they can do.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Early on many people simply left Russia, because it was the safer option. These were the people with passports, which also are the people with the best qualifications.
But the main reason is propaganda, Russian propaganda claims it's Ukraine and the west that is to blame for the war, and Russia is only defending themselves against western expansion. At the same time the propaganda also claims Russia had to invade Ukraine to liberate them from Nazism.
Another reason is fear, if you stand up to the government, and talk against the war, you go to jail, and in Russia people die pretty quickly in jail.
You can't even call it a war without risking going to jail for it. Because officially it's just a military operation.

But still at some point if this continues much longer, conditions will deteriorate enough, so either people rebel or the Russian federation breaks up.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Data is a funny thing.

According to this graph, there has been a decrease every month so far this year, including in January. Yet by chopping it by year, it appears as an increase (since 2024 ended so high).

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing that this could well be the deadliest year so far for Russia, or that there are very real seasonal differences between Spring and Summer fighting that could make this the deadliest year. Only pointing out how data can push varying narratives depending on how it's presented. Always use critical thinking when you see data visualized.

Slava Ukraini

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

According to this graph, there has been a decrease every month so far this year,

Increase in March, and the general winter trend is lower casualties than the rest of the year. Which was always expected from the beginning of the war, but Russia chose to escalate even during winter periods in previous years.

I’m not disagreeing that this could well be the deadliest year so far for Russia,

For sure it's the deadliest first 4 moths, with every month being clearly above previous years. And clearly increasing each year.

Obviously we don't know yet how the rest of the year will be but:

Daily average:
2024 last year: 846+983+910+899 = 3638
2025 This year: 1556+1255+1328+1209 = 5348

Difference 5348-3638*100/3638 = 47%

Doesn't look like that much on the graph IMO, but that's an increase of almost 50% already compared to first 4 months last year!
Russia is short of everything, so it wouldn't be too strange if they began to have a shortage of soldiers too. But if Russia makes a new mobilization effort, this number will probably increase again.

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's almost as if assaulting Ukrainian positions using ladas and motorbikes increases the casualties... 🤔

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I don't think the best equipped are the main problem though. 😜

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

It's very telling when you look at the plots of the equipment losses in different categories. Especially ATV's, cars and motorcycles started significantly increasing last year, while AFV's, APC's and tanks were going down. There's a very clear shift in the equipment the russians are using.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Need to pump those numbers up.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

Seriously, for Russia those are rookie numbers.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

oh no! that's sooooooo terrible!

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yes let's hope nothing happens to Pootin, I'd be absolutely devastated. 😱 🤣

[–] Franklin@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

i mean, a needless loss of life is terrible, especially considering most of their soliders are conscripts with little choice in the matter.

However fuck Putin for making this happen.

[–] doo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Those conscripted recently had three last years and plenty of choices to avoid ending up in a situation with little choices.

It is terrible but it doesn't seem that they cared before or care now about the war being wrong. At best they care about their own survival.

[–] Franklin@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I had no idea I'm sorry I thought that it was a much more militant draft than that

[–] doo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, I heard it's getting more militant too. One of the reasons for that is that before they were drafting from the poor regions and there a little money gives a lot of motivation. Not the case in better off regions, so force is needed to "motivate".

Poor or rich, it doesn't matter. They go to war and are ok with that as long as they're winning. There's no remorse or suspicion that they might be on the wrong side. They just don't care.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

russian would send 70more million about half of thier population, in order to continue the war.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I think Russia will collapse before they can do that.