The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[KipPotapych]

^ Like I said in my previous post. Reply with something constructive and we can discuss it. I couldn’t care less about your thoughts otherwise. Don’t like what I say, provide a counterargument. As you can see, I am fairly good at replying (even when I don’t particularly think it is worth the time). Don’t like my sources, tell me why and provide something better. Otherwise, it is just spitting air and you will keep getting frustrated with me and yourself, all to no avail.

PS Note that I am not the one in the discussion you got touchy about (I know, it must be an cumulative effect, not just that one) not providing sources, but overly confident opinion (that people are entitled to, even when they are wrong).

 

[Redshift]

^ Like I said in my previous post. Reply with something constructive and we can discuss it. I couldn’t care less about your thoughts otherwise. Don’t like what I say, provide a counterargument. As you can see, I am fairly good at replying (even when I don’t particularly think it is worth the time). Don’t like my sources, tell me why and provide something better. Otherwise, it is just spitting air and you will keep getting frustrated with me and yourself, all to no avail.

PS Note that I am not the one in the discussion you got touchy about (I know, it must be an cumulative effect, not just that one) not providing sources, but overly confident opinion (that people are entitled to, even when they are wrong).

There is no point responding that way. I won't be offended or hurt if you don't reply to me, but I am simply pointing out that your "contribution", substantial that it is, is 90 percent or more favourable to Russia, it's political position, it's military position and it's "press" output.

It is of course highly unlikely that your " Russia first" "make Russia Great again" narrative is entirely correct.

Please continue, I'm not trying to stop you I just feel that your clear and absolute bias needs pointing out now and again as you have a habit of swamping the discussion with huge walls of text.

I'm not touchy either, you totally misunderstanding my point, but then you know that and are reflecting.

 

[Bob53]

There must be two different versions of Gen Cavoli’s speech out in the wild. I read the transcript and saw no such thing as outlined in Bob’s post (I had my doubts, as already expressed).

[…]Furthermore, Russia's ongoing effort to develop a massive military larger than its pre-war force, combined with its propensity to absorb military, political, and economic costs to achieve its strategic goals, indicate that Russia poses an enduring threat to the United States, our NATO Allies, and global security. This threat is intensified by Russia's strengthened relationships with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), and the Republic of Iran (Iran). Together, this group of adversaries seeks to undermine U.S. and Allied advantages and challenge our vital interests at home and abroad.

Russia continues to pursue strategic objectives that undermine the United States. While the war in Ukraine has been Russia's focus and the most visible sign of Moscow's great power ambitions, Russia's strategic objectives are centered on attaining unencumbered influence in its near-abroad and greater international power while diminishing the leadership and influence of the United States. The Kremlin openly communicates its desire for an alternative to NATO as the European security architecture, to expand Russia's military, and to increase force presence in key locations along NATO borders. Following the old Soviet playbook, Russia is engaging in a calculated destabilization campaign through cyberattacks on infrastructure, public sabotage, targeted violence, weaponized migration, election interference, and information operations. These activities have serious consequences for the freedoms and prosperity we enjoy in the United States. Taken together, they confirm the chronic threat that Russia poses to U.S. interests.

Within this broader context, the war in Ukraine is fundamentally about creating opportunities for Russia to gain geopolitical advantages and denying them to NATO. The scale of violence on the battlefields in Kursk, Donetsk, and Bakhmut demonstrates Russia's willingness to employ brutal means in pursuit of its goals. Now entangled in an extended, large-scale war, the Russian regime has refashioned its military, economic, and social structures to sustain what it describes as a long-term confrontation with the West-systemic changes that illustrate Russia's intention to confront us into the foreseeable future.

Despite extensive battlefield losses in Ukraine, the Russian military is reconstituting and growing at a faster rate than most analysts had anticipated. In fact, the Russian army, which has borne the brunt of combat, is today larger than it was at the beginning of the war-despite suffering an estimated 790,000 casualties. In December 2024, Moscow ordered the military to increase its strength to 1.5 million active service members and is recruiting approximately 30,000 troops per month. Russian forces on the frontlines of Ukraine are now at over 600,000, the highest level over the course of the war and almost double the size of the initial invasion force.

Russia is not just reconstituting service members but is also replacing combat vehicles and munitions at an unprecedented pace. Russian ground forces in Ukraine have lost an estimated 3,000 tanks, 9,000 armored vehicles, 13,000 artillery systems, and over 400 air defense systems in the past year—-but is on pace to replace them all. Russia has expanded its industrial production, opened new manufacturing facilities, and converted commercial production lines for military purposes. As a result, the Russian defense industrial base is expected to roll out 1,500 tanks, 3,000 armored vehicles, and 200 Iskander ballistic and cruise missiles this year. (Comparatively, the United States only produces about 135 tanks per year and no longer produces new Bradley Fighting Vehicles.) Additionally, we anticipate Russia to produce 250,000 artillery shells per month, which puts it on track to build a stockpile three times greater than the United States and Europe combined.

Not all of Russia's military capability has been degraded by the war. Russia continues to hold the largest nuclear weapons stockpile in the world. Russia's nuclear arsenal is composed of an estimated 2,500-3,500 high- and low-yield warheads, which can be tailored for use on the battlefield or employed strategically. Recently, the Kremlin updated its nuclear policy, which is

intended to communicate a lower nuclear threshold and outlines the range of contingencies that could justify the use of nuclear weapons. Russia also maintains robust chemical and biological weapons programs and has repeatedly used the chemical weapon chloropicrin and riot control agents as a method of warfare across the frontlines of Ukraine, in violation of its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Within its air and maritime capabilities, Russia has sustained only minor losses in Ukraine. The Russian Aerospace Force currently retains over 1,100 combat-capable aircraft that include Su-57 stealth fighters and Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers. Aside from some losses in its Black Sea Fleet, the Russian Navy remains intact, with over 60 submarines and 42 surface vessels capable of launching nuclear-tipped Kalibr cruise missiles.

Russian commanders still emphasize quantity and mass over skill and operational acumen. However, the poorly resourced and disorganized Russian forces we saw during the initial invasion have improved significantly. Russian formations are gaining combat experience. The military has demonstrated its ability to learn from the battlefield, disseminate new concepts across organizations, and counter Ukrainian tactical and technical advantages. It has implemented rapid cycles of adaptation and is developing new capabilities to accelerate force modernization. In November 2024, the Russian military conducted its first strike on a Ukrainian military facility with the new Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile. Russian officials have stated this missile could be equipped with a nuclear warhead. We have seen Russian forces employ new, domestically produced electronic countermeasures against Ukrainian jamming technology to improve strike efficacy. Additionally, Russian ground forces are integrating reconnaissance and one-way attack drones into their offensives on the battlefield. Russia is also expanding its undersea capabilities through the addition of Severodvinsk-ll class nuclear-powered cruise missile attack submarines, Dolgorukiy Il-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and other undersea reconnaissance capabilities both in the European and Indo-Pacific theaters. These new capabilities show that the Russian military is intent on gaining tactical and operational advantage for the future battlefield.

To support Russia's growing military apparatus, the Kremlin has established economic policies to restructure its financial institutions and defense industry. In September 2024, Russia announced a 25% increase in defense spending, which represents 6.3% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP)[…]

There is no talk about the Ukrainian forces getting better or worse. I wonder what he is basing his Russian tanks and IFVs production numbers. Like I said above, the Iskander number seems very believable, but the armour… Not so sure, to say the least.

In regards to the claims of Russians using chemical weapons:

Both the Russian Federation and Ukraine have accused one another and reported allegations of use of chemical weapons to the Organisation.

A compendium of all official correspondence by States Parties on such allegations and accusations has been made available on the OPCW public website and is regularly updated.

The information provided to the Organisation so far by both sides, together with the information available to the Secretariat, is insufficiently substantiated.

Statement on Ukraine from the OPCW Spokesperson

www.opcw.org

That’s the statement after the accusation Cavoli is talking about, made public by the United States in May of last year.

Sorry for the copy-paste above. I didn’t feel like summarizing. I might summarize a few other points later, maybe.

re my post. It assume it was an extract of a speech and the hyper link to the video somehow highlighted part of the text contained with the video. Click in the text forthe full video.

 

[Bob53]

^ Like I said in my previous post. Reply with something constructive and we can discuss it. I couldn’t care less about your thoughts otherwise. Don’t like what I say, provide a counterargument. As you can see, I am fairly good at replying (even when I don’t particularly think it is worth the time). Don’t like my sources, tell me why and provide something better. Otherwise, it is just spitting air and you will keep getting frustrated with me and yourself, all to no avail.

PS Note that I am not the one in the discussion you got touchy about (I know, it must be an cumulative effect, not just that one) not providing sources, but overly confident opinion (that people are entitled to, even when they are wrong).

Sort of like stating Ukraine is producing 500 Neptune missiles a month because the Ukraine defence ministry says so …so let’s debate it.

Just as the US officer says Russian will produce 3000 tanks a year.just because the Russian ministry of defence puts out a press release saying so….
it’s nonsense and no one has the energy to debate it.

 

[rsemmes]

substantial that it is, is 90 percent or more favourable to Russia

Simply because Ukraine is at the receiving end.
Is RUSI, Rand, IISS or theguardian reporting anything about Ukraine getting 50 Neptunes a month? Or 3.000.000 artillery rounds a year?
As that American general said: "Look at the numbers". That is the reality.

 

[rsemmes]

"favourable to Russia"

Ukraine war briefing: Russian missile attack in Zelenskyy’s home town kills 18
Nine children among the dead in strike on Kryvyi Rih residential area as Kyiv says Moscow’s claim it targeted military gathering is false. What we know on day 1,137

Ukraine war briefing: Russian missile attack in Zelenskyy’s home town kills 18

Nine children among the dead in strike on Kryvyi Rih residential area as Kyiv says Moscow’s claim it targeted military gathering is false. What we know on day 1,137

www.theguardian.com

I would say that 90% of what we get (in the West) is against Russia.
Is "Zelenskyy’s home town" relevant? That is "collateral damage", isn't it?
I usually read that the mayor or governor "claims" a number of civilians victims, when they are Russians. Some collateral damage are more "damage" than others?
Is Russia wasting a missile on "a playground"? Do "residential areas" have playgrounds?
The reporting is the same when Ukraine is hitting a residential area in Ukraine?
Was Ukrainian AD active at that time in that area? I would say that is relevant.

And I do consider theguardian reliable. (Not like Xavier Tytelman: "The Ukrainian Government didn't provide that explanation, the Ukrainian Military didn't provide that explanation, but this intrepid correspondent was able to find the truth.")

 

[Fredled]

You successfully missed the point entirely. Here's the crossing, for clarity;

What do you mean? I don't see anything on this map that shows that these theories could be wrong.
They are only theories thought.
Please elaborate...

You are repeating propaganda again.

You are free not to believe it.
Personally, I know, it's not only propaganda: It's also people who are there and who are talking (or talking when they come back) in real life. From Russia and from Ukraine. Not on YouTube, not in interviews, not in article posted on line but in real life. These stories are not available anywhere, not on Ukrinform, not on Youtube, not on social networks. But they are confirming what you call "propaganda".

Others who opposed the offensive included the highly respected Emil Ishkulov, commander of Ukraine's 80th Air Assault Brigade. He was dismissed in July.
....
Ishkulov objected to the Kursk operation, fearing his brigade could eventually be too exposed inside Russia and that the casualty toll could rise precipitously.

In this case, Zelensky was right to dismiss Ishkulov because nothing of what he feared happened and the Kursk Incursion was a huge success.
There is no proof, and it's unlikely that Zelensky in person took this decision. It's more probable that several officiers asked Zelensky to dismiss him. You can fight with commanders who lack motivation or trust in their own forces. But if Zelensky real had this insight and really took this decision personally with the approval of other officiers, then I underestimated him.

Again, Trump cannot issue new aid. Period.

Why? If Biden could, why Trump couldn't?

Russia definitely didn’t lose all that in the last year. Oryx totals for the duration of an entire war, up until April 1, 2025:

This is visually verified losses and by this they mean from satellite pictures.
It's forcibly much less than the real number which can't be visually verified.

 

[Fredled]

I would say that 90% of what we get (in the West) is against Russia.

Not 90%: 100%.
Because every death or casualty, on both sides, is Russian fault entirely because Russia started it. Russia is attacking Ukraine without any valid reason. (The only valid reason would be self defence against an attack on their own territory).

the strike on Kryvyi Rih was targeted at a military gathering

And what? What's the difference?
It's still a crime and those who ordered this strike should be jailed for life (or killed if they refuse to surrender).
Killing soldiers of another country when these soldiers are not attacking your country is murder.
Killing children because you missed the intended target only put aggravating circumstances to the initial crime.

And I do consider theguardian reliable. (Not like Xavier Tytelman

==> LOL. Xavier Tytelman is much more reliable than The Guradian. They are even not comparable.
But again, you are not obliged to believe what he or I say.

 

[Redshift]

Simply because Ukraine is at the receiving end.
Is RUSI, Rand, IISS or theguardian reporting anything about Ukraine getting 50 Neptunes a month? Or 3.000.000 artillery rounds a year?
As that American general said: "Look at the numbers". That is the reality.

I don't know and I don't care, why did you pick that truly weird example.

And yes you too are a Russian propagandist troll who only sees success as one way.

Cheers

 

[Vanquish]

There is no point responding that way. I won't be offended or hurt if you don't reply to me, but I am simply pointing out that your "contribution", substantial that it is, is 90 percent or more favourable to Russia, it's political position, it's military position and it's "press" output.

It is of course highly unlikely that your " Russia first" "make Russia Great again" narrative is entirely correct.

Please continue, I'm not trying to stop you I just feel that your clear and absolute bias needs pointing out now and again as you have a habit of swamping the discussion with huge walls of text.

I'm not touchy either, you totally misunderstanding my point, but then you know that and are reflecting.

^
I certainly agree. I skip over his posts because it's like reading a Russian blog. I have high respect for @Feanors posts because they are always factual while covering the Russian perspective.

 

[rsemmes]

I don't know and I don't care, why did you pick that truly weird example.
And yes you too are a Russian propagandist troll who only sees success as one way.
Cheers

You certainly made your point clear.
On the other hand, I am not quite sure if there is any point in following any point you make, because you don't "know" and, worse, you don't "care".

 

[rsemmes]

"Xavier Tytelman is much more reliable than The Guardian." (by Fredled)

Can anyone verify that statement?

 

[KipPotapych]

re my post. It assume it was an extract of a speech and the hyper link to the video somehow highlighted part of the text contained with the video. Click in the text forthe full video.

I tried yesterday (and today) out of curiosity. The link doesn’t take you anywhere.

Sort of like stating Ukraine is producing 500 Neptune missiles a month because the Ukraine defence ministry says so …so let’s debate it.

Just as the US officer says Russian will produce 3000 tanks a year.just because the Russian ministry of defence puts out a press release saying so….
it’s nonsense and no one has the energy to debate it.

Sort of like I have an entire post (and a part of the other) dedicated to a debate about the numbers because whatever Cavoli said does not sound realistic. If Russia can produce 1,500 tanks a year, you can pack it up, the war is over. So it is either selective reading or something else. In other words, I am debating the subject, provide other sources and evidence, while some others post whatever they do instead. To each their own though. So far, only seaspear posted something useful on the subject, past the post of mine questioning the numbers.

PS If the Russian MoD or Putin said they are producing 3,000 tanks a year, I would call it bullshit exactly the same way because that’s what it would be. Without even debating so, unless someone questioned my narrative. Interestingly, I actually have no idea what Russian MoD reports say because I never read or listen to them. I couldn't care less. If, however, an American general states the same, one takes a pause before expressing their doubts. Hence, the (relevant parts of the) discussion above.

In this case, Zelensky was right to dismiss Ishkulov because nothing of what he feared happened and the Kursk Incursion was a huge success.

Of course. Who would have doubted.

The most optimistic assessment of the Kursk offensive that I saw (from level-headed people) was that “historians will view it as a gamble”, I think is the exact quote (could be mistaken in terms of “exact”). That was Mike Kofman. We can all carry on though.

Why? If Biden could, why Trump couldn't?

Biden couldn’t either.

This is visually verified losses and by this they mean from satellite pictures.
It's forcibly much less than the real number which can't be visually verified.

Oryx does not compile their lists from satellite pictures. That would be insane.

Yes, visually confirmed. The point is that the general told you that the Oryx list represents only about 30% of the actual losses.

"Xavier Tytelman is much more reliable than The Guardian." (by Fredled)

Can anyone verify that statement?

About as reliable as any other propagandist, (pro-)Russian or (pro-)Ukrainian. It’s actually weird that people dismiss some (pro-)Russian dude running around the Russian side of the battlefield, Moscow, etc, spewing nonsense, yet they fully accept the same dude from the other side. Why not accept both then? Dismiss both?

On this subject:



For context:

For “laughs and giggles”:

I am rather amazed that this guy is still being relatively widely cited by the media and quoted by various people who should know better (Gen. Ben Hodges likes the guy, for example). I wonder how much money he is milking from this war via his “analysis”. He’s also been asked numerous times by the guys who create the maps he uses not to do so, yet… They asked in this fresh “take” as well:

Edit: Russian propaganda everywhere you look:

 

[seaspear]

To be fair Russia is not going to disclose accurate information on its production or supply of materials, consider that by law a police military action they do not disclose casualty numbers unless it was a declared war anyone in Russia calling it such can face jail time ! When I mention supply of tanks to the fighting this can include the t54 and t55 tanks that may have been involved in putting down the Hungarian uprising in 1956 so hardly modern compared to a t-90m ,A question is what happens to production numbers when the supply of materials that have been sitting in the open for decades are exhausted? Certainly some of the refurbished artillery is pre ww2 ,that Russia had to import ammunition and artillery for its troops from North Korea suggests heavy uses and losses of such , and production reports do not mean supply when you consider attacks on depots and storage resulting in very large conflagrations more recently an example Engels base

Russia brings back World War II M30 122mm howitzers to support ongoing artillery demands in Ukraine

Russia brings back World War II M30 122mm howitzers to support ongoing artillery demands in Ukraine

armyrecognition.com

 

[KipPotapych]

A question is what happens to production numbers when the supply of materials that have been sitting in the open for decades are exhausted?

That’s the question everyone seems to be asking, but no one has an answer to. We had the same dilemmas about artillery shells. They figured it out. Other issues. They figured it out too. So who knows. Is it even going to get to that point though?

What we do know for sure today is that, amazingly, Russians can take potentially higher losses and advance all the same on bukhankas, scoters, on foot, or otherwise. Using heavy equipment only when they think necessary or feasible. Then they recruit 30,000 more people next month and do it all over again. Then they recruit even more people and increase their grouping by 150,000. And then they do it again. And so on.

Russia plans to increase grouping in Ukraine by 150,000 troops in 2025, Ukrainian official says

"Their formation is ongoing. The Russians have no problems with recruiting personnel now," Presidential Office Deputy Head Pavlo Palisa said.

kyivindependent.com

 

[KipPotapych]

@seaspear, another report that might interest you. In German though (I don’t understand anything aside from the tweet translation.

 

[seaspear]

There have been reports that 75 percent of Russian casualties are due to drone operations if Russians are using civilian vehicles or other exposed methods on the front perhaps they do need 30,000 regularly to maintain the numbers on the front,

 

[Fredled]

Fiber Optic Drone Range:

20 km-range fibre-optic drones and new EW systems already in use at front.

Not 40. But 20 is half of 40 and is also a valid number, it seems.
At the same time they improve their own production, they cripple that of the enemy:
In the city of Saransk in the Russian Federation, drones attacked the main Optical Fibre Systems production plant in Russia
__________________________________

Sort of like I have an entire post (and a part of the other) dedicated to a debate about the numbers because whatever Cavoli said does not sound realistic. If Russia can produce 1,500 tanks a year, you can pack it up, the war is over.

What Cavoli said is a theoretical estimate and probably means all armoured vehicles, not only MBTs.

The most optimistic assessment of the Kursk offensive that I saw (from level-headed people) was that “historians will view it as a gamble”

And it was!
Of course it would have been much safer to keep all the equipment in the rear and do nothing.
There are many instances in history when a war was won thanks to such gamble or lost when it failed.
Here, Ukrainians didn't win the war thanks to this specific gamble. But they delayed by 7 or 8 months any major Russian offensive outside Pokrovsk, probably in Zaporyzhia.

I understand it sounds strange to call it a success after the terrible losses they had in the last days of their retreat (for reasons that have already been debated). Or after they failed to force the Russian to pull their forces out of the Pokrovsk axis, which was the primary goal.

In fact, I consider it a big success because the effect lasted much longer than the most optimistic analysts hoped.
If the Russians didn't withdraw from Pokrovsk, they also removed some forces from the Zaporyzhia region and couldn't bring reinforcement elsewhere. Even to Pokrovsk, the reinforcements were just enough to keep the pressure. Not enough for a breakthrough. And this for 7 months.

Biden couldn’t either.

Biden did. Just have a look at the evolution of military aid until the Republican blockade of 2024: It increased constantly.
I don't understand what you are talking about here...

About as reliable as any other propagandist, (pro-)Russian or (pro-)Ukrainian. It’s actually weird that people dismiss some (pro-)Russian dude running around the Russian side of the battlefield, Moscow, etc, spewing nonsense, yet they fully accept the same dude from the other side. Why not accept both then? Dismiss both?

Telling the truth doesn't mean you are making propaganda.

Seriousely: Does Ukraine really need propaganda? Russian crimes are visible every day. The string of annexation, helping the Donbas separatist movement militarily and then the full scale invasion have broken all international laws and killed uselessly hundred of thousands of people.
Yes, Ukraine does some propaganda to amplify Russian crimes, but it doesn't take them much effort to convince the world, except those who refuse to see. Even Russian official statements are so crazy that it's benefiting the Ukrainian propaganda. It means that if you have no bias, you condemn Russia automatically because verified facts against them are overwhelming.

More inportantly, Tytelman's reporting is incredibly interesting for the technical information on military equipment and anecdotal reports on operations in Ukraine. That's the way you have to watch his videos.
When someone makes a video as interesting or almost as interesting on the Russian side, and I have watched one or two, I'm not thinking "are they biased?". I just enjoy watching with great interest.

There have been reports that 75 percent of Russian casualties are due to drone operations if Russians are using civilian vehicles or other exposed methods on the front perhaps they do need 30,000 regularly to maintain the numbers on the front,

I think it's 55 or 60%. Whatever.
The point is that assaulting positions with civilian vehicles is far from optimal. Proof is that they still engage armoured vehicles in frontal assaults sometimes.

Maybe the reason is the lack of fuel, rather than the lack of armoured vehicle.

 

[KipPotapych]

There have been reports that 75 percent of Russian casualties are due to drone operations if Russians are using civilian vehicles or other exposed methods on the front perhaps they do need 30,000 regularly to maintain the numbers on the front,

Doubtful (that they need 30K just to maintain the numbers). Consider that all the reports and analysis indicate that they consistently recruit 30,000 every months with very little deviations. This one is actually weird because it appears that all (publicly reported) intel that I saw, analysts, Russian statements (as reported by the media at least), etc, they all agree. It’s probably about the only thing that everyone is in the agreement with. But all reports and projections also indicate that their force is growing in Ukraine every month and will continue to grow. Then add the number of troops in Kursk. They are constantly and consistently growing their numbers, there is very little doubt about that.

On the personal level, I have no idea how these people keep signing up for the grinder. Sure, money and all that, but there is clearly an excess of jobs in Russia that may pay less (some will pay the same though), but don’t involve killing or being killed, wounded, or shot at, and so on.

PS If I continue on this subject, it will push me to or over the 90% limit of the propaganda range, lol.

What Cavoli said is a theoretical estimate and probably means all armoured vehicles, not only MBTs.

What the transcript I cited, the part I directly quoted and then wrote again in another post clearly say is that they will produce 1,500 tanks and 3,000 armoured vehicles, specifically. So no, it probably does not mean that it includes MBTs and all other armoured vehicles.

And it was!
Of course it would have been much safer to keep all the equipment in the rear and do nothing.

Because there are no other options, but go to Kursk or do nothing and keep the equipment safe in storage or whatever.

Anyway, I am done with this stuff, because everyone had expressed their opinions and the discussion doesn’t change anything anyway.

Biden did. Just have a look at the evolution of military aid until the Republican blockade of 2024: It increased constantly.
I don't understand what you are talking about here...

Think of the few first months of 2024 for striking example.

Telling the truth doesn't mean you are making propaganda.

Truth is apparently relative.

Seriousely: Does Ukraine really need propaganda?

Yes, obviously.

I think it's 55 or 60%

I previously posted the stats two or three times citing different sources.

Maybe the reason is the lack of fuel, rather than the lack of armoured vehicle.

That would be highly unlikely, in my opinion.

 

[rsemmes]

Winning the Industrial War: Comparing Russia, Europe and Ukraine, 2022–24
"The initial Russian invasion plan for Ukraine envisaged the destabilization of the Ukrainian state by Russia’s special services, followed by a coup de main by the Russian military to rapidly seize and take control of Ukraine’s political and economic centres."

https://static.rusi.org/winning-the-industrial-war-comparing-russia-europe-ukraine-2022-24.pdf

Russia, good; Ukraine, need to improve; Europe, F-
Maybe someone with a deeper industrial/financial base could provide a better input. (I'm still working on it.)


It is not fuel, Russia is running out of rubber.