4 ms·

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. S

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.
  - rjzzleep 5y ago
    There's also a new Gas pipeline deal with China. Although when there is no other trading partner but China left, I bet China's conditions on the deal beats Germany's wildest dreams. The biggest winner out of this diplomacy mess of the last decades seems to be China. Just like with the 10 year lease China got in Afghanistan from the Taliban.
  - majewsky 5y ago
    Why is that in China's interest though? As a casual observer, all I can see right now is Russia messing up China's Belt and Road strategy, in which Ukraine is one of several transit countries towards Europe.
    - ksec 5y ago
      >Why is that in China's interest though? That is a good question with no concrete or simple answer. Apart from they are allies. May be China wants to gain control of Russia as some have stated ( I find that highly unlikely ), or Xi wanted a test and see how Taiwan could be handled.
ddalex 5y ago
People must stop using west-based numbers for these calculations, the economy is totally different in the east * lost equipment costs basically 0 - they are mostly old hand-me-downs, the factories are not producing them anymore, so all the costs are already sunk; also the supply is plenty, so abandoning them is nothing; but let's be generous and say $100k / piece of equipment lost * airplanes are more expensive, but again, this is old stock, there is plenty of them, and not incurring costs of producing more - let's say 10M per craft * $1000 / day / soldier - this is absurd. They left the poor blokes in the cold with no fuel, military rations that expired in 1997 for food, and they rob the houses and stores they encounter for necessities; I'd say max $20 / day / soldier, and this is a country that average salary is $500 / month, so paying your soldiers $600/month is above average ! So in total this gets you 14M / day. Let's double that for the upkeep and then round up to 50M / day and you'll get a closer look at what the costs truly are like for Russia. Basically the military in this invasion costs them spare change. The really costly bit is sanctions - in this context the lost at least 300B so far, with no end in sight. No wonder Putin is pissed.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > lost equipment costs basically 0 - they are mostly old hand-me-downs, the factories are not producing them anymore, so all the costs are already sunk; Sure, for some legacy capital items, the production costs are sunk. But the cost of not having the equipment isn't. You can pay replacement cost or you can pay the permanent reduction in military capacity cost, but you are paying the cost either way if you lose the equipment. Unless you are saying the operational value of the equipment is zero, in which case, sure, the loss is zero but then why did you even bring it to war in the first place? > airplanes are more expensive, but again, this is old stock, there is plenty of them, and not incurring costs of producing more - let's say 10M per craft If you aren't calculating it at the cost of replacing the capacity provided, you are underestimating the real cost.
  - Martinussen 5y ago
    Those don't matter too much if you win first, I suppose.
baq 5y ago
note that what you say is the _lower_ limit, "business as usual" if you can use that phrase. nothing was usual for the russian army in the first week. now that they're starting to reorganize, it might go back down, but that's assuming logistics will be functioning. this is not a given since the army seems to be corrupt in and out.
acthrowthrow123 5y ago
Worth to read the article rather just the headline. Few mentions in the article 1) $20B is not the cost right now but expected to be: "the daily cost of war for Russia is “likely to exceed $20 billion” as the invasion scales. 2) Article mentions also lost of $2.7B from GDP because those killed russian soldier won't be veteran in the future and won't work in private sector etc and won't bring any money to russia economy in the future. 3) Article also mentions other supplies: ammunition, fuel, etc. - they are using a lot of rockets and those are not cheap to build and in comparison to tanks rockets are just 'disposable' products.

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.
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  There's also a new Gas pipeline deal with China. Although when there is no other trading partner but China left, I bet China's conditions on the deal beats Germany's wildest dreams. The biggest winner out of this diplomacy mess of the last decades seems to be China. Just like with the 10 year lease China got in Afghanistan from the Taliban.
- majewsky 5y ago
  Why is that in China's interest though? As a casual observer, all I can see right now is Russia messing up China's Belt and Road strategy, in which Ukraine is one of several transit countries towards Europe.
  - ksec 5y ago
    >Why is that in China's interest though? That is a good question with no concrete or simple answer. Apart from they are allies. May be China wants to gain control of Russia as some have stated ( I find that highly unlikely ), or Xi wanted a test and see how Taiwan could be handled.

ddalex 5y ago

People must stop using west-based numbers for these calculations, the economy is totally different in the east * lost equipment costs basically 0 - they are mostly old hand-me-downs, the factories are not producing them anymore, so all the costs are already sunk; also the supply is plenty, so abandoning them is nothing; but let's be generous and say $100k / piece of equipment lost * airplanes are more expensive, but again, this is old stock, there is plenty of them, and not incurring costs of producing more - let's say 10M per craft * $1000 / day / soldier - this is absurd. They left the poor blokes in the cold with no fuel, military rations that expired in 1997 for food, and they rob the houses and stores they encounter for necessities; I'd say max $20 / day / soldier, and this is a country that average salary is $500 / month, so paying your soldiers $600/month is above average ! So in total this gets you 14M / day. Let's double that for the upkeep and then round up to 50M / day and you'll get a closer look at what the costs truly are like for Russia. Basically the military in this invasion costs them spare change. The really costly bit is sanctions - in this context the lost at least 300B so far, with no end in sight. No wonder Putin is pissed.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> lost equipment costs basically 0 - they are mostly old hand-me-downs, the factories are not producing them anymore, so all the costs are already sunk; Sure, for some legacy capital items, the production costs are sunk. But the cost of not having the equipment isn't. You can pay replacement cost or you can pay the permanent reduction in military capacity cost, but you are paying the cost either way if you lose the equipment. Unless you are saying the operational value of the equipment is zero, in which case, sure, the loss is zero but then why did you even bring it to war in the first place? > airplanes are more expensive, but again, this is old stock, there is plenty of them, and not incurring costs of producing more - let's say 10M per craft If you aren't calculating it at the cost of replacing the capacity provided, you are underestimating the real cost.
- Martinussen 5y ago
  Those don't matter too much if you win first, I suppose.

baq 5y ago

note that what you say is the _lower_ limit, "business as usual" if you can use that phrase. nothing was usual for the russian army in the first week. now that they're starting to reorganize, it might go back down, but that's assuming logistics will be functioning. this is not a given since the army seems to be corrupt in and out.

acthrowthrow123 5y ago

Worth to read the article rather just the headline. Few mentions in the article 1) $20B is not the cost right now but expected to be: "the daily cost of war for Russia is “likely to exceed $20 billion” as the invasion scales. 2) Article mentions also lost of $2.7B from GDP because those killed russian soldier won't be veteran in the future and won't work in private sector etc and won't bring any money to russia economy in the future. 3) Article also mentions other supplies: ammunition, fuel, etc. - they are using a lot of rockets and those are not cheap to build and in comparison to tanks rockets are just 'disposable' products.