Russian forces are facing their highest daily casualty rates since the start of the war in Ukraine, yet they continue to make slow tactical advances in key regions, according to a senior NATO official.
Speaking ahead of the NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels, the official outlined Russia’s heavy losses on the battlefield and the incremental progress being made despite those challenges.
In September 2024, Russian forces recorded an average of 1,271 casualties per day, the highest since the start of the conflict. This surge in losses, surpassing the previous record set in May 2024, is attributed to expanded combat zones in Kharkiv and Kursk and the high-density front lines where fierce fighting is ongoing.
“Average daily Russian casualty rates of killed and wounded reached a new monthly high in September,” the official said, attributing this to the intensification of combat across eastern Ukraine and continued Ukrainian resistance.
Despite these losses, the official noted that Russian forces are still making slow tactical advances, particularly in the eastern regions. However, these gains are limited by a range of issues, including high attrition rates, logistical challenges, and officer shortages.
“Russia continues to make small but steady tactical advances in the East, though they have been limited by high attrition rates and other operational difficulties,” the official explained.
Russian Munitions Production Under Pressure
One key factor that has enabled Russia to sustain its slow advances is its production of munitions. According to the NATO official, Russia is currently producing around 250,000 munitions per month, amounting to approximately 3 million per year.
This figure is bolstered by additional supplies from countries such as North Korea and Iran.
“Russia is producing about 250,000 munitions per month, and this is being supplemented by significant shipments from North Korea and Iran,” the official noted. North Korea, for instance, has reportedly sent at least 6,700 containers of ammunition to support Russia’s war effort, while Iran has provided at least 300,000 artillery shells.
Despite these efforts, the official highlighted that Russia still faces challenges in sustaining large-scale offensive operations. “While Russia maintains a three-to-one superiority in artillery fire on the front lines, they still lack the necessary maneuver units and munitions for a major offensive,” the official stated.
Attrition Takes Its Toll
The NATO official also mentioned that Russia’s approach is one of attrition, relying on overwhelming Ukrainian defensive positions with massed forces rather than precision strikes or high-tech weaponry. However, even with its ability to produce large quantities of munitions, Russia’s forces are increasingly strained by the demands of the conflict.
“Russia’s high munitions production rate and the aid it receives from its allies allow it to continue its operations, but this comes at a significant cost to its long-term military capabilities,” the official added.
While Russia continues to make small gains, the official suggested that these advances are unlikely to lead to a decisive breakthrough in the near future, given the resilience of Ukrainian forces and the continued flow of Western military aid to Ukraine.
Great to see some clear info coming through regarding russian munitions manufacturing capabilities and how this subsequently frames the conflict.
Obviously exact numbers of western 155mm shell production is somewhat clouded, but off the top of my head i remember the intent being to supply Ukraine 1million shells from the EU in a year and to produce 1 million shells a year in the usa. Just reading up on this a bit more, i now see the new intent is the eu to expand its production capacity to 1.4million 155mm shells by the end of 2024 and for usa to produce 100’000 a month by the end of 2025
Ukraine stated earlier in this year that there absolute minimum daily amount needed is 6000, so thats 2.19 million a year.
Is that 6000 per day just 155mm ? Ukraine are still using 152mm and 122mm. Interestedly there been a report in the last month that Russia are unhappy that Indian manufactured shells are being used by Ukraine
yes, from the source i read, but newspaper hacks are notoriously useless with military stuff, so i would take it all with a big pinch of salt
I think it came from Forbes and was then further verified by Jane’s and OSINT sources so pretty reliable. This is nothing new, lots of 3rd party nations not directly allied to either Ukraine or Russia have been selling munitions to whoever was prepared to pay the highest price.
I’d read that as well, seems India will do what is best for India, with utter disregard for any alliances or reported friendships. India will sell their produce to whoever is prepared to pay. In this case Ukraine via western backed governments monetary donations and direct purchase from funds like the EU’s Ukraine support fund.
Of course Russia could try to outbid the Western donors and purchase these munitions themselves, leading to a bidding war, which is exactly what India would like most.
It was for 155mm shells , so no good to Russia . Company’s in Italy, Spain and a couple of Eastern European country’s . There was a news article online
155mm shell cases, so no good to Russia. They were sold to a number of company’s from Italy, Spain and Czech Republic. Driven by India concern about China
India has certainly sat on the fence with this one politically, business wise as you say they will deal with either. Happy to buy cheap oil from Russia and sell expensive munitions to anyone purchasing to supply Ukraine.
Frontlines in Ukraine getting more artillery and shells is more than welcome…Its just not quick enough
And the problem is that many of the brigades are struggling with many issues including lack of equipment and just can’t go on the offensive. You see a few counter attacks here and there!
Yet russians can suffer heavy casualties and still make small gains
I still believe KURSK is badly diverting equipment better needed elsewhere…
Yes they can make small gains while suffering massive losses of territory in undefended sectors. It’s not really a gain in territory if you loose 10 times more in another area.
The lack of equipment is just one of the issues facing a lot of Ukranian Brigades.
Little is heard of the Kursk offensive at the moment. It was clearly not ever going to be just a raid, but what is UKR’s medium to long term plan for this operation, I wonder? Can they sustain it indefinitely? What is the effect of the loss of these troops to operations ‘back home’? I heard the Russians were blocking further advances of the UKR force but that is to be expected. Surprised the Russians have not hit the incursion force massively from the air.
I doubt the good Mechanised Brigades are still there, they’ve probably handed off to the TDF etc. As for sustain it? It’s more can Russia evict them. I suspect Ukraine is just holding on to it so that they have bargaining chips and maybe to draw Russian forces.
Yes. Russia’s inability to evict (or defeat) the UKR Kursk force rather confirms their military ineptitude.
How many more casualties, over 600k and counting, does it take before the Russian population thinks there acceptable losses become unacceptable? The numbers are shocking. Russian society surely at some point has to say enough is enough.
I fear not. The Russians are a subdued, serf like people that will only stand up when their rulers look weak, like Tzar Nicholas II. Putin and his regime know that a loss in Ukraine will likely lead to their own personal demise and so have no compunctions about throwing ordinary Russians into the grinder to preserve their own skins. This will continue until they are decisively defeated or, bit by bit, they are able to achieve their war aims regardless of cost. The Russian population will do absolutely nothing like the whipped curs they are.
Unfortunately, the Russian historical record would appear to refute that hypothesis, at least at this casualty rate.
I know a lot of Russians and anyone from Moscow and St Petersburgh considers any other Russian a lower life form.
The Soviet Union didn’t distinguish so much which is why Russian mother (from Moscow) got upset over Afghanistan. Although Soviet leaders like Gorbachev were half decent human beings that listened.
The current leadership are much more like the Tsars and have zero regard for anyone outside the white European bubbles of Moscow and St Pete’s.
They will happily suffer losses like this for years.
Most Russians are pretty thick, they have deluded themselves that while they are basically useless at every industrial world task they are good at fighting wars however their perception of fighting wars is suffering drastic casualties while loosing millions of square miles of territory while an invaders logistics collapses.
Afghanistan, Chechnya, WWI… I’m not sure Russia’s historical record does refute that hypothesis.
Deem Afghanistan and Chechnya not to be directly applicable Relatively minor conflicts which were not perceived as existential conflicts by Soviet and Russian leaders. WWI is a more interesting case. Russian Empire suffered an estimated 5.8Mn casualties (1.81 Mn KIA) and it is generally acknowledged that the casualties contributed to the social unrest which ultimately ended in revolution. Lesson to be drawn could be that the Russians can absorb incredible losses, or that, popular unrest could occur after a tipping point is reached, or perhaps, both apply. In any event, current Orc casualty rate in UKR will require a significant time period to reach 5.8Mn casualties and/or 1.8Mn KIA. 🤔
So I could sit here and point out how Afghanistan had a direct influence on the collapse of the USSR or how Chechnya was almost an exact copy of Ukraine from the Russian perspective (trying to recapture a breakaway portion of Russia) but that’s not the point:
The point is people constantly claim fighting a land war with Russia is a loosing proposition, and that Russia doesn’t care about losses, and that they never loose: By only counting their wins and completely ignoring their losses, and then trying to excuse their losses by handwaving.
Russia looses all the time. They get their hand burned, take high casualties and pull out all the time. They had one war where they could send loads of Ukranians and Belarussians to the front, and got a metric boatload of Western lend lease, where they sustained tons of casualties, and won and have surfed on that reputation for decades.(Also same goes for WWI, Russia had tons of Ukranians, Belarussians, Latvians, Poles, and Fins it could send to the front it no longer has).
Russia’s population is now not even that of France and Germany’s, just for reference. They do not have the limitless supply of manpower that the vatniks and “Russia stronk” memes love to pretend they have, which is why they are now asking North Korea to send them troops.
Sorry, believe the ghosts of Bonaparte and Hitler would arise to argue the point, if feasible. More seriously, there is no current indication that Mad Vlad is not reconciled to the current casualty rate in a war of attrition for an indefinite period. If that strategy fails, there does not appear to be an impediment to a megalomaniacal despot implementing official Russian doctrine of “escalate to de-escalate,” w/ the world’s largest nuclear weapon inventory. Would current NATO leaders wager London, Paris and Washington on Kiev? Not certain it would be wise to bet the farm on that proposition. If NATO collectively (both ENATO and Uncle Sugar) were committed to and implementing serious rearmament programmes, which included both conventional and nuclear weapons, would be more sanguine re course of UkR conflict.
Sorry but those two invasions of Russia are massively over emphasised, specifically because the Russian’s themselves love to bring them up and ignore all their losses.
For every Napoleon I can point to a Crimean War.
I have read that the estimation is Russia can sustain these losses for another 18 months to 2 years at the current attrition rate.
I cant see the war lasting another 18 months to 2 years. I think Trump presidency would pull the rug out from under Ukraine and then we will see crumbling support for the country, a generalised selling them out from all partners and then Russian victory, albeit at a very high cost. This of course wont make the west any safer as Russia will have taken a country that was a perfect buffer zone and good fighting territory.
NATO will have to draw up plans to then defend Romania, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria all of which have much more difficult terrain and the capture of Ukraine leaves Poland and the Baltics very much exposed to further Russian expansionistic plans. At a time when the USA is likely not interested or willing to help its NATO allies and possibly even will withdraw from NATO, further emboldening Mad Vlad.
The EU and UK will need to rapidly get very serious about defence and look to fill the void a Trump presidency will leave. So our own defence expenditure will have to go up to 5-7% and our armed forces probably triple in size and capability very very quickly. We are already behind the curve on this matter and should have begun the defence increases and rebuilding military muscle and industrial base the very minute Putin invaded Ukraine.
Europe already out spends the US in Ukraine and out produces the US in munitions. Trump will have no effect. US aid is already authorised by congress and signed into law by the president for three years. He can’t change that.
Even if all western aid stopped tomorrow Ukraine will fight on and Russia has nothing kept to over power them.
With just Europe supporting them and handing over more of those Russian bonds the Ukrainians can keep going for years.
Certainly would desire that more citizens of ENATO countries adopt your perspective. Personally, would be content if ENATO principal powers would simply match CWI GDP percentage expenditures on defence. That could conceivably be politically feasible, if respective publics could be convinced that their freedom, and quite possibly survival, were at imminent risk.
However, separately, would also strongly recommend significant additional investment in both strategic and tactical nuke weapon systems by both France and the UK. Foresee no viable alternative to increasing both warhead inventory, and as importantly, diversification of delivery systems. Specifically, maintaining the official policy of not carrying more than 40 warheads on the sole RN SSBN on CASD patrol, may well prove to be ani nsufficient deterrent in future scenarios (as well as being a potential single point failure possibility). RAF investment in a squadron (or perhaps wing) of F-35As and associated infrastructure would probably be the lowest cost pathway to delivery system diversification. Naturally, am an advocate of RAF B-21 acquisition, but realize that may simply be a financial bridge too far. Have no data re whether Eurofighter is, or could reasonably become, certified for nuke strike mission.
.
If ENATO could become sufficiently independent in terms of military capabilities, it would become almost immaterial what course Uncle Sugar pursues. Dunno, perhaps instead of dinosaurs like me counseling preparedness, an advertising campaign would prove to be more successful. Disagree? A television commercial during the US presidential campaign of 1984 had suspenseful images of a bear stalking prey in the forest and narration suggesting preparedness was a wise course of action. Quite effective message, probably contributed to a landslide victory for RR (RIP). Always implicitly believed in Teddy Roosevelt’s admonition to “walk softly and carry a big stick.”
…an insufficient…🙄
The contentment of many European nations with their social welfare and healthcare provision means that very few ENATO citizens would want their Governments to spend much more than the NATO 2% target in peacetime, which might threaten that.
There are exceptions – Poland is one – but they are nearer the Russian bear than we are, and they remember invasion by the armies of two murderous neighbouring dictators regimes.
Absolutely agree w/ your assessment. Unfortunately, most ENATO publics seemingly cannot be convinced to invest in rational measures to prepare for the gathering storm. 🤔😳
If the current situation ended tomorrow with a Russian victory and they turned the attention to Poland next year it would be a laughable scenario. I doubt Russia would get a couple of miles across the border.
Poland has very quickly reacted and cleverly equipped itself in a very short time, not that it wasnt well equipped already.
Russia wouldnt have any hopes of making inroads into the country.
You seem sure of a Trump win. But I hear that Harris is starting to make comments suggesting reduced support for UKR under her leadership.
We will not boost Defence up to 5-7% to either further aid Ukraine or to ‘defend against a weakened Russia’.
I could see the war continuing for some time. Decisive victory by either side is unlikely as is an agreement to hold serious peace talks. Both leaders are unswerving.
If Trump wins (and he may not) then US suport may be reduced or stopped. It does not follow that all European nations will do the same. However without US military support Ukraine’s position wil be more fragile. Europe may up the ante but I doubt will fully fill the hole created by US cessation of support.
I can’t see anything pushing our defence up to 5-7%, except if enemy invasion forces are crossing the Channel bound for southern beaches! The Tories, who liked to think of themselves as the party of defence presided over savage cuts, especially in 2010. Labour have not even said when they will push defence from 2.2% to 2.5% of GDP.
That will be about 1 million then going at there current rate.
Well…that’s the key point, Russia peasants ( I call them that as they are seemingly illiterate and not aware of wider world-wide information and believe blindly what they are told) are fed propaganda and a daily diet of lies from Putin and his oligarch controlled dictatorship. They believe what they are told. eg that Russia is fighting an existential war for its very existence, the war in Ukraine is protecting Russian speaking peoples from Nazis and the evils of an encroaching NATO hell-bent on invading and conquering Russia.
Under those circumstances sacrifice and casualties for “mother Russia” are acceptable and actually seen as honourable.
The fact they are fighting for a pile of utter BS and only dying for Putin’s war of conquest is irrelevant if no-one is even aware or considers that possibility.
Russian’s don’t believe shit, they have spent their lives ignoring anything that is not right in front of them and they lack basic human empathy from being raised in such an inhumane society.
They’re basically Vikings with T72’s.
Problem is most Orcs don’t care about other Orcs dying. Especially if they are the Moscow Orcs then they really don’t give a shit about anyone else not from Moscow.
Russia could suffer 6 million casualties and the Moscow Orcs won’t care. Moscow Orcs are far more concern they have to take a connecting flight on their Holliday plans and can’t get spare parts for their Mercedes.
In UK doctrine when I was serving, casualties of 30% would render a unit or formation combat ineffective and it would have to be withdrawn from its position and reconstituted.
It takes a very brave Russian citizen to protest against the war – penalties are severe.
It takes a very brave Russian citizen to join the Russian military. 600,000+ dead or injured and for what? Could they lock that many people up? The 600,000 would’ve been better off doing a few years porridge that’s for sure.
Being locked up involves getting off a bus at the front line holding an AK47, they are happy to ‘lock people up’ its more fodder for the front line.
We can expect to see NK ‘soldiers’ in those figures very soon!
With the same principles, the North Koreans are even less likely to complain or rise up with causalities sustained fighting in Ukraine for Mad Vlad’s ideology.
You will likely find thousands of North Koreans promptly fragging their officers, ditching their Uniform and heading West, it’s a golden opportunity to get away from ‘Lil’ Kim’s grasp.
Unless he is holding their families hostage of course🤔
Hit the nail on the head there, I suspect that was the first thing to be considered
The Russian tactics are similar to WW2 and Russia’s steamroller attacks, without the co-ordination of air support, massive artillery support and training. This really is meat grinding warfare and Russia seems to be happy enough under Mad Vlad to pay that price. No sign of discontent or uprising despite these huge casualties.
Their tactics are more like the Soviet shock army’s made up by penal battalions. In WW2 they had hundreds of thousands of US trucks for logistics now they have nothing. That’s why they can’t do maneuverer warfare.
“Russia’s approach is one of attrition, relying on overwhelming Ukrainian defensive positions with massed forces”
I am hoping the day when they can no longer do this, is rapidly approaching, In the meantime we have to keep our support for UKR going.
Not sure if any of you saw the screenshots from Russian news showing a CR2 turret sans hull somewhere in Kursk. The turret was absolutely torn to pieces following a cook off. Oddly it revealed that the sides of the CR2 turrets appear to simply by one thick sheet of steel rather than composite
Where is the body of that CR2 if the Russians destroyed it with a loitering munition? It’s been recovered and the turret has been destroyed by the recovery crew.
Nearly 2 years in theatre and two have been lost.
That makes a lot of sense, hope you’re right
I’ve seen the pictures. Honestly I don’t think anyone is in a position to say anything about the composition other than “My completely uninformed opinion is that I think it would look different.”
Russian news? Sure its not propaganda?
Quite hard for bagged charges in pressurised glycol charge bins to cook off, but suppose it is possible.
The pictures are quite legitimate – much more clearer than the ones posted by the best known UK redtop,and the position has been geolocated too.
If correct, then UKR has lost 2 Challys to enemy fire, by my count – and possibly one crew.
The september 2023 actions in Robotyne led to the obvious loss of 1 CR2 but there were unconfirmed rumours of another.The Kursk offensive this year has led to the loss of this one and there is another that a video exists of,so i would say 3 lost confirmed so far – a Ukrainian source has said much about their operational use and availability.
Surely Russia has wiped it’s own red lines out the way with N.K troops in Ukraine for NATO to push into defend the northern borders so Ukraine can finish the “special military operation” in the south
If large amounts of North Koreans show up in Ukraine that’s exactly what NATO will do. Push into Ukraine and guard it away from the front to free up Ukrainians.
China will be super pissed at mad Vlad as well.
This is donkey geopolitics from a desperate regime.
Used en-masse around Pokrovsk, the North Koreans may manage to force a breakthrough.
I really don’t know how long the Ukrainians can continue to hold out given their horrific manpower situation. Once they lose the Kursk territory they have, then what?
No one is producing enough munitions for them. That has to change.
Used en-masse around Pokrovsk the North Koreans won’t force a breakthrough unless they have rather major logistics and vehicle support that seems to be rather lacking.
And what “horrific manpower situation” is that? I don’t see any such thing.
A somewhat disturbing hypothetical: Mad Vlad chooses to roll the cosmic dice during the contested interregnum of US election. Detonate 10 or fewer tactical, relatively low yield nukes over the UKR front to create exploitable gaps. Pre-announce that any direct NATO involvement will be deemed an existential threat and be met w/ a strategic strike. NATO convenes crisis mtgs to address situation. W/out firm US guidance, does ENATO engage or blink? Potentially, very interesting times directly ahead…🤔😳
Putin will definitely do something outrageous during that bizarre interregnum you guys have.
He’d have to be mad to lob a few nukes about……but then he is mad.