The losses suffered by the Russian army were extreme, not only for the standards of the post-Cold War, but also for all the standards of the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, the experience of the Russian war so far is perhaps more reminiscent of the mud and sludge of the Battle of Somme in 1916 than any subsequent military involvement. By my calculations, based on a variety of public information, the Russians have lost about 30% of the forces they have sent to Ukraine. This is a truly colossal number, higher, in fact, than almost any involvement in modern military history from the US Civil War to the two world wars. The US Civil War, often regarded as the first war of the industrial age, suffered enormous casualties and fighting on all sides. But even Robert E. Lee, the Confederate General who suffered the most casualties, lost almost 20% of his army despite 30%. Going into World War II, the Russian losses already exceed the German losses in the famous bloody battle of Kursk. This series of battles, perhaps the largest armor engagements in human history, saw the Germans suffer heavy losses in their war against Stalin’s Soviet Union. Indeed, after Kursk, the Germans never again launched a major offensive on the Eastern Front. In the six weeks of the campaign, which launched the German offensive (known as Operation Acropolis) and expanded through Soviet counterattacks after the failure of the Acropolis, the Germans lost somewhere between 160,000 and 200,000 of the more than 900,000 soldiers they captured. This loss rate (between 17-22%) was almost unprecedented at the time, but again, it is pale compared to the estimated Russian losses today. Now let’s look at the Battle of Som. The commitment is usually discussed mainly in connection with its extremely bloody first day, during which almost 20,000 British soldiers were killed. After that, although the British losses were significant, they slowed significantly as the British Army learned and adjusted. Knowing the exact losses throughout the battle is not easy and can spark passionate discussions today. However, based on the data we have, we can roughly estimate that about 1.05 million soldiers were killed on all sides, out of the approximately 3.5 million committed to the area from the end of June to the end of September, about 30% . The crucial thing, however, is that these losses occurred in 12 weeks and the conflict in Russia started just seven weeks ago. What does this huge percentage of Russian losses mean for the next stage of the war? The first Russian forces around the world are suffering. The Russian Air Force is still unable to gain air supremacy in battle zones, and the Russian navy, which this week lost its flagship Moskva, has shown that it is unbearable. There are indications that morale is low: among the units withdrawn from Kyiv there are stories of soldiers refusing to return to battle. Meanwhile, back in Russia, significant steps are being taken to recruit new soldiers to fill the ranks. In military terms, the Russian army that invaded Ukraine six weeks ago may have another big effort – but based on historical evidence, it seems likely that it would. In other words, the Battle of Donbass, if that is what we are witnessing, may be the last roll of the dice for Russia with this army. After that, Putin will need a whole new army if he is to continue this war. Phillips O’Brien is a historian and professor of strategic studies at St Andrews University
