4 ms·

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

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.
asimpletune 5y ago
But the article is talking about costs, not spending
raxxorrax 5y ago
> This figure is transparently nonsensical. Think of consultancy more of a wellness program instead of substantial help.
ksec 5y ago
>>I'm as hopeful as anyone for Ukraine to survive this awful war with her sovereignty intact, but we must be realistic. I am willing to bet 90% of people will believe that number when it is printed by the press or shared on social media. It is so sad we live in a world where 99.9% of news are either factually incorrect or completely taken out of context.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bartimus 5y ago
Unless they put a 15 day time limit to the operation: https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-revealed-secret-battle-plans-left-behind-by-russian-troops-2022-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-revealed-secret-batt...
- chrisco255 5y ago
  If that's anything like 15 days to flatten the curve...
  - hihihihi1234 5y ago
    "nothing more permanent than a temporary government policy"
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  Don't forget that the source for that claim is still the ukrainian government. Not exactly the most reliable source when it comes to russian intentions.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rjzzleep 5y ago
Another estimate was a lot less based on the cost of previous operations. "Firstly, Russian ordnance is generally less sophisticated and cheaper than US kit. Secondly, Russian military vehicles do not use petroleum, but diesel – a fuel that is cheaper and offers a better range. He also estimated the cost of equipment losses in the first four days of fighting. Ten aircraft, at an average price tag of $30 million per airframe, would cost $300 million. One hundred armored fighting vehicles – troop carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, mobile artillery and tanks – which cost an average of $5 million each, would hit the Russian taxpayer with a $500 million bill. The source then estimated the daily cost of keeping a Russian soldier – a cheaper fighting man than his US counterpart – in the field to be approximately $1,000. He multiplied that by the upper estimate of Russia’s force level in Ukraine – 200,000 troops. For one day, that would be $200 million. Over four days, troop maintenance costs would total $800 million. So the total cost for four days of combat operations in Ukraine would be in the region of $1.6 billion – the source added it could rise to $2 billion. But even that upper range would put daily costs to the Kremlin of its invasion at about $500 million." https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/russias-low-cost-war-can-endure-western-sanctions/ https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/russias-low-cost-war-can-endur...
- riskneutral 5y ago
  Only 500MM per day. Very affordable for a couple of weeks. After 6 months, though, that's a $90 billion accumulated bill. That's not including escalation of costs as everything gets more difficult. Unlike the United States with its US dollar, Russia does not own the reserve currency of the world, so it cannot really afford to wage war at this level of intensity for the next 10 to 20 years that it would need to, in order to hope to achieve its extreme political and military objectives. It's a clearly idiotic an egregiously costly strategic error.
  - ksec 5y ago
    But they are partly bankrolled by China. They will wont be able to sustain years of war, but it could go on much longer than expected.
    - 5y ago
sofixa 5y ago
The report and your figures are in USD. But the rouble, the currency Russia actually uses to pay for salaries, equipment, etc., has crashed, and we don't even know what was the course when the report's estimations were made. Furthermore, the losses they've suffered are significant, and most of that equipment is decades old, acquired under Soviet "budgets".
- rplnt 5y ago
  The Ruble did crash, but not that hard that those numbers could be attributed to that. It's roughly at -36% when compared to EUR two weeks ago.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 5y ago
I can’t see the article because the server isn’t happy with all the attention, the headline makes me assume that this is total cost to Russia including e.g. sanctions. The foreign reserves that were frozen (which I know is different from “seized”) were 2-4 months GDP depending on which estimate I use for how much was frozen. I’ve not seen any estimate for the economic impact from reduction in trade.
ftrobro 5y ago
Russia does not normally buy 5 advanced fighter jets every day, so their peace time military budget is not a relevant comparison. The numbers in the article also seem to include future costs that might be ammortized over 50 years or something. So in short: the numbers are just wild guesses, but not nonsensical.

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.

asimpletune 5y ago

But the article is talking about costs, not spending

raxxorrax 5y ago

> This figure is transparently nonsensical. Think of consultancy more of a wellness program instead of substantial help.

ksec 5y ago

>>I'm as hopeful as anyone for Ukraine to survive this awful war with her sovereignty intact, but we must be realistic. I am willing to bet 90% of people will believe that number when it is printed by the press or shared on social media. It is so sad we live in a world where 99.9% of news are either factually incorrect or completely taken out of context.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bartimus 5y ago

Unless they put a 15 day time limit to the operation: https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-revealed-secret-battle-plans-left-behind-by-russian-troops-2022-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-revealed-secret-batt...

chrisco255 5y ago
If that's anything like 15 days to flatten the curve...
- hihihihi1234 5y ago
  "nothing more permanent than a temporary government policy"
mardifoufs 5y ago
Don't forget that the source for that claim is still the ukrainian government. Not exactly the most reliable source when it comes to russian intentions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rjzzleep 5y ago

Another estimate was a lot less based on the cost of previous operations. "Firstly, Russian ordnance is generally less sophisticated and cheaper than US kit. Secondly, Russian military vehicles do not use petroleum, but diesel – a fuel that is cheaper and offers a better range. He also estimated the cost of equipment losses in the first four days of fighting. Ten aircraft, at an average price tag of $30 million per airframe, would cost $300 million. One hundred armored fighting vehicles – troop carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, mobile artillery and tanks – which cost an average of $5 million each, would hit the Russian taxpayer with a $500 million bill. The source then estimated the daily cost of keeping a Russian soldier – a cheaper fighting man than his US counterpart – in the field to be approximately $1,000. He multiplied that by the upper estimate of Russia’s force level in Ukraine – 200,000 troops. For one day, that would be $200 million. Over four days, troop maintenance costs would total $800 million. So the total cost for four days of combat operations in Ukraine would be in the region of $1.6 billion – the source added it could rise to $2 billion. But even that upper range would put daily costs to the Kremlin of its invasion at about $500 million." https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/russias-low-cost-war-can-endure-western-sanctions/ https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/russias-low-cost-war-can-endur...

riskneutral 5y ago
Only 500MM per day. Very affordable for a couple of weeks. After 6 months, though, that's a $90 billion accumulated bill. That's not including escalation of costs as everything gets more difficult. Unlike the United States with its US dollar, Russia does not own the reserve currency of the world, so it cannot really afford to wage war at this level of intensity for the next 10 to 20 years that it would need to, in order to hope to achieve its extreme political and military objectives. It's a clearly idiotic an egregiously costly strategic error.
- ksec 5y ago
  But they are partly bankrolled by China. They will wont be able to sustain years of war, but it could go on much longer than expected.
  - 5y ago

sofixa 5y ago

The report and your figures are in USD. But the rouble, the currency Russia actually uses to pay for salaries, equipment, etc., has crashed, and we don't even know what was the course when the report's estimations were made. Furthermore, the losses they've suffered are significant, and most of that equipment is decades old, acquired under Soviet "budgets".

rplnt 5y ago
The Ruble did crash, but not that hard that those numbers could be attributed to that. It's roughly at -36% when compared to EUR two weeks ago.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ben_w 5y ago

I can’t see the article because the server isn’t happy with all the attention, the headline makes me assume that this is total cost to Russia including e.g. sanctions. The foreign reserves that were frozen (which I know is different from “seized”) were 2-4 months GDP depending on which estimate I use for how much was frozen. I’ve not seen any estimate for the economic impact from reduction in trade.

ftrobro 5y ago

Russia does not normally buy 5 advanced fighter jets every day, so their peace time military budget is not a relevant comparison. The numbers in the article also seem to include future costs that might be ammortized over 50 years or something. So in short: the numbers are just wild guesses, but not nonsensical.