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

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.