From the updates I’ve seen, I get the sense that Russia is fighting through the culmination of their multi-front offensive in hopes of making gains ahead of the muddy season. I try not to remark too much about casualty rates, but the increase in tandem with the low ratio of tanks does seem to speak to this bit of speculation (not a military expert or even a “war nerd”, just following along as a layperson mind you).
From the updates I’ve seen, I get the sense that Russia is fighting through the culmination of their multi-front offensive in hopes of making gains ahead of the muddy season.
This is what confuses me about Russia’s choosing these huge losses in the past couple of months. In less than week the USA will have submitted all ballots for the Presidential election (with likely another week of confusion and complaints until the victor is clear). If Trump wins, he will destroy US and possibly European support for Ukraine causing Ukraine to be wiped out by Russia. If Harris wins, then at least the amount of military and economic support continues as it has so far, or it could get even larger. Even if Harris keeps the support the same, Putin doesn’t cannot take 4 more years at the current rate of attrition, and he’ll have to withdraw or be kicked out when the Russian well runs dry.
So when the answer is less than a month away, why double down on meat waves with such tremendous losses? Why not wait for the results of the election defensively, while building up your forces, and either go forward with attacking a then weakened Ukraine under Trump, or turn around and use your forces at home to attempt to suppress your population to keep Putin in power under a Harris win?
What would be another plausible benefit to ramping up your own casualties for marginal land gains when the outcome of the war is largely going to be influenced in a month or two?
You’re a general with political ambitions, and you’re sabotaging the strategies of a rival with malicious compliance. Who knows really, the point is that there isn’t a good reason for it because we don’t know who in that chain of command might benefit - and the null hypothesis that it’s an unforced error definitely can remain in play here, I’m not discounting that at all.
Russia still has a lot of tanks in storage - many dating back to just after WWII. However all the good ones have been used up and so what is left needs major rework, or brand new off the assembly line tanks. Generally it is thought between the two Russia can produce about 3 tanks per day (the real number is classified so we/I don’t know). What this means is Russia was forced to make hard decisions about using tanks
Maybe they really run out of battle ready tanks now, and that pays heavily into casualties as they can’t give cover to advancing orcs?
From the updates I’ve seen, I get the sense that Russia is fighting through the culmination of their multi-front offensive in hopes of making gains ahead of the muddy season. I try not to remark too much about casualty rates, but the increase in tandem with the low ratio of tanks does seem to speak to this bit of speculation (not a military expert or even a “war nerd”, just following along as a layperson mind you).
This is what confuses me about Russia’s choosing these huge losses in the past couple of months. In less than week the USA will have submitted all ballots for the Presidential election (with likely another week of confusion and complaints until the victor is clear). If Trump wins, he will destroy US and possibly European support for Ukraine causing Ukraine to be wiped out by Russia. If Harris wins, then at least the amount of military and economic support continues as it has so far, or it could get even larger. Even if Harris keeps the support the same, Putin doesn’t cannot take 4 more years at the current rate of attrition, and he’ll have to withdraw or be kicked out when the Russian well runs dry.
So when the answer is less than a month away, why double down on meat waves with such tremendous losses? Why not wait for the results of the election defensively, while building up your forces, and either go forward with attacking a then weakened Ukraine under Trump, or turn around and use your forces at home to attempt to suppress your population to keep Putin in power under a Harris win?
It’s too simple to assume Putin is the only one in Russia with an agenda, even though so much power has been consolidated with him.
What would be another plausible benefit to ramping up your own casualties for marginal land gains when the outcome of the war is largely going to be influenced in a month or two?
You’re a general with political ambitions, and you’re sabotaging the strategies of a rival with malicious compliance. Who knows really, the point is that there isn’t a good reason for it because we don’t know who in that chain of command might benefit - and the null hypothesis that it’s an unforced error definitely can remain in play here, I’m not discounting that at all.
Russia still has a lot of tanks in storage - many dating back to just after WWII. However all the good ones have been used up and so what is left needs major rework, or brand new off the assembly line tanks. Generally it is thought between the two Russia can produce about 3 tanks per day (the real number is classified so we/I don’t know). What this means is Russia was forced to make hard decisions about using tanks