10 ms·

Research: ‘Ukraine war costs Russian military €20B per day’

68 points by bartimus 5y ago

jl6 5y ago
Let’s say Putin succeeds in capturing and subduing some or all of Ukraine and integrating it into Russia. Who’s going to pay the reconstruction bill? They must have caused a hundred billion dollars worth of damage already, with more to come. How is Russia going to afford to rebuild the smoking ruin they inherit?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  As always, the conquered pay. Romans did not build roads, they made others build roads for them. Crusaders did not build castles, Palestinians and Turks were made to build castles for them.
  - jl6 5y ago
    That makes sense for manual labor where a soldier can stand over you and make you work, but rebuilding Ukraine will need technology - diggers, cranes, steel, concrete, cables, pipes, electronics, fuel… a soldier can’t just shoot those things into existence.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      The Ukrainians will need places to live. Russians will not build those. Ukrainians might be constrained to buy reconstruction services from Russian oligarchs, and to go to work for them, at a (large) net loss. Conquerors find ways to extract value.
samarama 5y ago
That’s not a good analysis. Maybe it costs $20B/day overall including sanctions, but military spend only should come out at around $2B.
erddfre3423 5y ago
I recommend this video from a Finnish army intelligence expert & researcher to those trying to understand logic behind Russia's actions. It's in Finnish but English subtitles should be good enough. Really awakening stuff at least for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw
noneeeed 5y ago
This gets to something I've been wondering about, what is the winning condition for Russia now? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see the ukranians giving in any time soon, they seem determined to fight for every inch. The cost of occupying them is going to be astronomical and tie up their military fighting a guerilla war. I assume the expectation was that they would invade, the ukranian government would run away and they could impose a puppet government, but that just doesn't look likely now. I may be very wrong, but I just don't see what the endgame is for Russia that doesnt bleed their economy dry in the process.
- compsciphd 5y ago
  If the west is willing to keep the economic sanctions on (and that's a big if). Russia as we knew it is over. There should be a few requirements for removal of sanctions. (in no order) 1) russian denuclearification (due to using the threat of nuclear weapons as an umbrella over a conventional war) 2) agree to remove themselves from UN Security Council as a permanent member (due to invading another sovereign state with basically complete worldwide condemnation, one can try to equate it to US moves, but none of them have been as universally condenmed, so yes, quantity matters in this regard). 3) complete pullback from Ukraine 4) reparations paid to Ukraine. 5) I've even argue to having to give up their european enclave. if they refuse, they will cease to be effectively an independent state and will simple become a chinese vassal state. so the Q is, what matters more to Russian pride. being an independent state that can mostly chart one's own destiny, but being a pale remnant of what they once were. Or having fake power but really simply being under the total control of china.
  - netsharc 5y ago
    Geez, let's be realistic, no leader would be able to swallow their pride and agree to your points, they'd rather pretend to have some pride left and go to China. If they agreed to those points, their destiny will be determined by "the West", which may look pure and good compared to Putin, but let's not pretend the US and EU are corruption-free, the rich and corporations also have outsized influence here.
  - vkou 5y ago
trevormcneal 5y ago
Russia wont back off, Ukraine wont back off... Sooner or later will be cheaper to start throwing nukes, this shit got too barbaric already.
- waste_monk 5y ago
  > Ukraine wont back off What the hell are they meant to do, roll over and die? The problem starts and ends at Russia.
nwiswell 5y ago
This figure is transparently nonsensical. Russia's 2019 military spend was 65 billion USD, or 58.6 billion EUR. Clearly they are not blowing through an entire year's defense budget in three days (that would be over 100x the usual rate of spend!). Or another sanity-check figure: Russia's entire 2020 GDP would pay for only 67 days of war at this run-rate. In other words, the country is using over 500% of its productive output on the war (a neat trick without any imports!) For reference, in 1940 the United States spent 1.64% of its GDP on defense. In 1945 it spent 37.19%. I'm as hopeful as anyone for Ukraine to survive this awful war with her sovereignty intact, but we must be realistic.
- robert_foss 5y ago
  Your point is well received, and these numbers definitely deserve some scrutiny. But it isn't particularly hard to imagine a higher spend rate during a large scale active conflict than during peace times.
  - okamiueru 5y ago
    And as many have pointed out, which is really clear from the article. Losing assets is a very significant part of the tally. Which makes me think this is a case of not understanding what the numbers are talking about. Hence the title such as "Direct losses from military action". Of course these numbers are very different compared to when stuff doesn't get blown up. Not to mention the stuff that is intended to be blown up. As for running costs, although less obviously different, as you mention, are not a surprise to be orders of magnitude larger during war. Logistics is expensive. War is expensive.
- piaste 5y ago
  > Clearly they are not blowing through an entire year's defense budget in three days (that would be over 100x the usual rate of spend!). The figure in the article includes losses; indeed, it speaks of costs, not spending. Of course losses can obliterate many years of budget, if you're losing permanent assets that took literal decades to build up! Armies don't get rebuilt from scratch every year.
- 5y ago
rjzzleep 5y ago
I guess these numbers we see in the west are a matter of perspective eh [1]? Other estimates say it's a calculated low cost ($500M) war. Has the world gone insane? People in the west are cheering on war escalations as if it's some fun weekend recreational activity. People on HN are posting suggestions to join the ukrainian forces, because I guess all those weapons they bought at walmart need to be put to use somehow. The West thinks that China isn't on Russias side because they didn't Veto the UN resolution as well, but they're just smart enough to take note of everything that is happening to make sure that they have contingencies of everything that is happening. You'll probably see them further removing reserves from foreign countries, further pushing CIPS across the global south, etc. Japan has joined the west in sanctioning Belarus. The EU has passed a resolution to ban Russian media outlets(and encryption, not in the same go). Apple Wallet kicked out russian banks, UK is freezing Russian assets, rating agencies have downgraded russia to junk status, all without UN mandate. All the semblance of international law has been thrown out the window. I can't help but ask, if this is what the West is willing to do for Ukraine without joining the EU or NATO what would have happened if it had joined either? Best case, everyone in the global south will pull out of the wests financial systems over the next couple of the decades further embolstering China and we'll see more non google/apple choice in the smartphone/tech market and governments outside of the west returning to a more cash based society and this will blow over with some collateral damage. Worst case this doesn't just blow over and Russia is backed in such a corner that is in fact no option but full scale war with the west. I think you guys(especially the europeans) ought to ask your grandparents(if they're still alive) how fun the last world war was, since asking Lybians is out of the question(they're stuck on boats). Iraq which was basically a massacre and destruction of Iraq left thousands in the west traumatized and millions decimated over there. And that's a country that has nowhere near the support nor the military capability russia had. [1] https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/russias-low-cost-war-can-endure-western-sanctions/ https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/russias-low-cost-war-can-endur...
- another_story 5y ago
  What part of international law says that a country can't be sanctioned for waging war or that a company can't choose where they want to do business?
mardifoufs 5y ago
How would that be possible? I guess the article is vague enough that you can maybe take into account the total cost to Russia not inclusive of military costs but even then, this is incredibly dubious. They do seem to specify at some point that this is about direct war expenses. Now keep in mind, the total russian military budget is only 60 billion $ per year (!!). At that rate, Russia would be not only be spending their yearly war budget every 3 days, but would also spend more money in a year than the USA did in 20 years in the notoriously expensive war in Afghanistan. Russia hasn't even deployed all of the forces it committed to the invasion, and those weren't a majority of it's armed forces to begin with. Yet they will be spending 5 years of military budget by the second week of war? It just makes absolutely no sense even if we were to take all the ukrainian figures at face value (regardless of how extremely unreliable they have been, for example we don't have any proof for any of the 27 claimed downed russian aircrafts while we do have footage for pretty much everything else in the war). It's okay to trust the ukrainian side a lot more, but you still have to keep in mind that war propaganda is probably not a good source for a report. Nevermind that even the absolute best case scenario where all ukrainian claims end up being true still do not come even close to being enough to back up the article's claims The report is so vague, the figures so outlandish and the sources are either terrible or absent that it's hard to even believe that actual researchers have ended up with these conclusions.
yread 5y ago
I saw another estimate as 500mil/day based on number of soldiers and published costs for iraq war. It could easily be even lower as their soldiers and everything are cheaper and their supply lines are shorter. So, who knows.
prawn 5y ago
Is troop morale likely to be an issue if Russians are worried about their currency and financial situations at home? Would they be getting paid reliably or even in a position to check their accounts?

68 points by bartimus 5y ago

jl6 5y ago

Let’s say Putin succeeds in capturing and subduing some or all of Ukraine and integrating it into Russia. Who’s going to pay the reconstruction bill? They must have caused a hundred billion dollars worth of damage already, with more to come. How is Russia going to afford to rebuild the smoking ruin they inherit?

ncmncm 5y ago
As always, the conquered pay. Romans did not build roads, they made others build roads for them. Crusaders did not build castles, Palestinians and Turks were made to build castles for them.
- jl6 5y ago
  That makes sense for manual labor where a soldier can stand over you and make you work, but rebuilding Ukraine will need technology - diggers, cranes, steel, concrete, cables, pipes, electronics, fuel… a soldier can’t just shoot those things into existence.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    The Ukrainians will need places to live. Russians will not build those. Ukrainians might be constrained to buy reconstruction services from Russian oligarchs, and to go to work for them, at a (large) net loss. Conquerors find ways to extract value.

samarama 5y ago

That’s not a good analysis. Maybe it costs $20B/day overall including sanctions, but military spend only should come out at around $2B.

erddfre3423 5y ago

I recommend this video from a Finnish army intelligence expert & researcher to those trying to understand logic behind Russia's actions. It's in Finnish but English subtitles should be good enough. Really awakening stuff at least for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw

noneeeed 5y ago

This gets to something I've been wondering about, what is the winning condition for Russia now? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see the ukranians giving in any time soon, they seem determined to fight for every inch. The cost of occupying them is going to be astronomical and tie up their military fighting a guerilla war. I assume the expectation was that they would invade, the ukranian government would run away and they could impose a puppet government, but that just doesn't look likely now. I may be very wrong, but I just don't see what the endgame is for Russia that doesnt bleed their economy dry in the process.

compsciphd 5y ago
If the west is willing to keep the economic sanctions on (and that's a big if). Russia as we knew it is over. There should be a few requirements for removal of sanctions. (in no order) 1) russian denuclearification (due to using the threat of nuclear weapons as an umbrella over a conventional war) 2) agree to remove themselves from UN Security Council as a permanent member (due to invading another sovereign state with basically complete worldwide condemnation, one can try to equate it to US moves, but none of them have been as universally condenmed, so yes, quantity matters in this regard). 3) complete pullback from Ukraine 4) reparations paid to Ukraine. 5) I've even argue to having to give up their european enclave. if they refuse, they will cease to be effectively an independent state and will simple become a chinese vassal state. so the Q is, what matters more to Russian pride. being an independent state that can mostly chart one's own destiny, but being a pale remnant of what they once were. Or having fake power but really simply being under the total control of china.
- netsharc 5y ago
  Geez, let's be realistic, no leader would be able to swallow their pride and agree to your points, they'd rather pretend to have some pride left and go to China. If they agreed to those points, their destiny will be determined by "the West", which may look pure and good compared to Putin, but let's not pretend the US and EU are corruption-free, the rich and corporations also have outsized influence here.
- vkou 5y ago

trevormcneal 5y ago

Russia wont back off, Ukraine wont back off... Sooner or later will be cheaper to start throwing nukes, this shit got too barbaric already.

waste_monk 5y ago
> Ukraine wont back off What the hell are they meant to do, roll over and die? The problem starts and ends at Russia.

nwiswell 5y ago

This figure is transparently nonsensical. Russia's 2019 military spend was 65 billion USD, or 58.6 billion EUR. Clearly they are not blowing through an entire year's defense budget in three days (that would be over 100x the usual rate of spend!). Or another sanity-check figure: Russia's entire 2020 GDP would pay for only 67 days of war at this run-rate. In other words, the country is using over 500% of its productive output on the war (a neat trick without any imports!) For reference, in 1940 the United States spent 1.64% of its GDP on defense. In 1945 it spent 37.19%. I'm as hopeful as anyone for Ukraine to survive this awful war with her sovereignty intact, but we must be realistic.

robert_foss 5y ago
Your point is well received, and these numbers definitely deserve some scrutiny. But it isn't particularly hard to imagine a higher spend rate during a large scale active conflict than during peace times.
- okamiueru 5y ago
  And as many have pointed out, which is really clear from the article. Losing assets is a very significant part of the tally. Which makes me think this is a case of not understanding what the numbers are talking about. Hence the title such as "Direct losses from military action". Of course these numbers are very different compared to when stuff doesn't get blown up. Not to mention the stuff that is intended to be blown up. As for running costs, although less obviously different, as you mention, are not a surprise to be orders of magnitude larger during war. Logistics is expensive. War is expensive.
piaste 5y ago
> Clearly they are not blowing through an entire year's defense budget in three days (that would be over 100x the usual rate of spend!). The figure in the article includes losses; indeed, it speaks of costs, not spending. Of course losses can obliterate many years of budget, if you're losing permanent assets that took literal decades to build up! Armies don't get rebuilt from scratch every year.
5y ago

rjzzleep 5y ago

I guess these numbers we see in the west are a matter of perspective eh [1]? Other estimates say it's a calculated low cost ($500M) war. Has the world gone insane? People in the west are cheering on war escalations as if it's some fun weekend recreational activity. People on HN are posting suggestions to join the ukrainian forces, because I guess all those weapons they bought at walmart need to be put to use somehow. The West thinks that China isn't on Russias side because they didn't Veto the UN resolution as well, but they're just smart enough to take note of everything that is happening to make sure that they have contingencies of everything that is happening. You'll probably see them further removing reserves from foreign countries, further pushing CIPS across the global south, etc. Japan has joined the west in sanctioning Belarus. The EU has passed a resolution to ban Russian media outlets(and encryption, not in the same go). Apple Wallet kicked out russian banks, UK is freezing Russian assets, rating agencies have downgraded russia to junk status, all without UN mandate. All the semblance of international law has been thrown out the window. I can't help but ask, if this is what the West is willing to do for Ukraine without joining the EU or NATO what would have happened if it had joined either? Best case, everyone in the global south will pull out of the wests financial systems over the next couple of the decades further embolstering China and we'll see more non google/apple choice in the smartphone/tech market and governments outside of the west returning to a more cash based society and this will blow over with some collateral damage. Worst case this doesn't just blow over and Russia is backed in such a corner that is in fact no option but full scale war with the west. I think you guys(especially the europeans) ought to ask your grandparents(if they're still alive) how fun the last world war was, since asking Lybians is out of the question(they're stuck on boats). Iraq which was basically a massacre and destruction of Iraq left thousands in the west traumatized and millions decimated over there. And that's a country that has nowhere near the support nor the military capability russia had. [1] https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/russias-low-cost-war-can-endure-western-sanctions/ https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/russias-low-cost-war-can-endur...

another_story 5y ago
What part of international law says that a country can't be sanctioned for waging war or that a company can't choose where they want to do business?

mardifoufs 5y ago

How would that be possible? I guess the article is vague enough that you can maybe take into account the total cost to Russia not inclusive of military costs but even then, this is incredibly dubious. They do seem to specify at some point that this is about direct war expenses. Now keep in mind, the total russian military budget is only 60 billion $ per year (!!). At that rate, Russia would be not only be spending their yearly war budget every 3 days, but would also spend more money in a year than the USA did in 20 years in the notoriously expensive war in Afghanistan. Russia hasn't even deployed all of the forces it committed to the invasion, and those weren't a majority of it's armed forces to begin with. Yet they will be spending 5 years of military budget by the second week of war? It just makes absolutely no sense even if we were to take all the ukrainian figures at face value (regardless of how extremely unreliable they have been, for example we don't have any proof for any of the 27 claimed downed russian aircrafts while we do have footage for pretty much everything else in the war). It's okay to trust the ukrainian side a lot more, but you still have to keep in mind that war propaganda is probably not a good source for a report. Nevermind that even the absolute best case scenario where all ukrainian claims end up being true still do not come even close to being enough to back up the article's claims The report is so vague, the figures so outlandish and the sources are either terrible or absent that it's hard to even believe that actual researchers have ended up with these conclusions.

yread 5y ago

I saw another estimate as 500mil/day based on number of soldiers and published costs for iraq war. It could easily be even lower as their soldiers and everything are cheaper and their supply lines are shorter. So, who knows.

prawn 5y ago

Is troop morale likely to be an issue if Russians are worried about their currency and financial situations at home? Would they be getting paid reliably or even in a position to check their accounts?