https://preview.redd.it/8g53m85bfv4e1.png?width=1483&format=png&auto=webp&s=301c865c622ca1bf68c77075913e6afbc14f677d

Targets: every state's capital and largest city

The war between Russia and Ukraine has not only caused immense human suffering but has also resulted in staggering economic losses for both countries. We often hear about the direct costs—the destruction of infrastructure, the loss of GDP, and the vast human toll—but what exactly are the total dollars broken down since the war, and what does that mean really - financially speaking?

About Me:
Canadian CPA, CA. Head of FP&A with over 20 years of experience providing financial insights and data-driven decision-making scenarios for multibillion-dollar MNCs across several industries. Based in Asia for the last 10 years, I’ve seen both East and West perspectives and the dangers of authoritarian leadership styles. Genuinely curious about the numbers behind everything and the underlying motivations.

I spent an hour with ChatGPT to arrive at a best estimate on the complete economic damages for each country, with continuous review/accuracy checks along the way. It can be more precise, but should be sufficient for a high-level analysis. Here’s what I uncovered:

Total Economic Loss Since February 2022

Not to mention over 200,000 lives lost that, out of respect, I won’t even begin to put a dollar figure beside. Or the $100+ billion in foreign aid pouring into Ukraine. Or the human suffering on both sides, extreme poverty, loss of wealth, or the wipeout of spending power and family savings from both currencies plummeting 30% and 50% since the war.

So anyway, strictly financially, total economic losses of $570 billion for Ukraine and $955 billion for Russia.

It's hard for anyone to get a grasp on such large numbers, but let's reflect on what these numbers could mean in terms of infrastructure and welfare spending to get a better understanding of their potential impact. Below is a breakdown:

Scenario: What Those Economic Losses Equate to in Infrastructure Spend

Keep in mind that Russia had about 2 million homeless people, and with only 10% of the economic damages from the war, they could have built exactly 2 million homes/apartment units, eradicating their homelessness crisis entirely.

Since the war started 2 years ago, we can assume roughly that the continued annual spend can equate to about half the amounts above.

Note: Don't quote me on the averages; although efforts were taken to ensure accuracy of ChatGPT relative to each country's local cost, this is just to put the numbers in broad context.

So take this as you will. As a finance professional, I was genuinely curious about the numbers, and thought I’d share my findings. It's obvious what the average citizen might have voted for regarding where to spend their tax dollars if given the two scenarios (YES, all this is spent using printed, borrowed, and taxpayer dollars—whether indirectly or directly). This is not unlike any other business, where shareholders (or taxpayers) objectives may differ from the decision-makers. So, providing the finances hopefully gives everyone a forum to align on something objective—the cost in this instance—and future forecasted costs.

Not here to comment really on the right/wrong, moral implications, or even broader implications, as Russia entered this war for reasons of sovereignty, which are beyond my scope of expertise.

Just here to put a price tag on all of this.

Isn’t Russia always talked about as being one of the world’s big scary militaries? Have I just been lied to my whole life? From my understanding, they should have been able to take Ukraine in about a few days. How long has it been now? I do not understand at all and I wish to know the truth. At the moment I view Russia’s military as one of the weakest on the planet.

Please link to relevant reading

Considering the amount of losses Russia is suffering in their war on Ukraine, which in October was average 1500 troops a day, how long can Russia last before they run out of viable troops. Also, considering that conscription has been avoiding decimating the Moscow population to avoid unrest - how long before the other regions might resist any further attempts at conscription? In other words - could Russia lose by running out of soldiers to fight for them?

Is there an argument to be made that IFVs in modern warfare should relinquish the “I” part, and instead - with ISTAR capabilities and equipped with something like M-SHORAD - be used to create protective bubbles for an advancing armor unit?

My armchair understanding is that IFVs go up close to the battle area and dismount its troops one geographic feature away, and stay with that dismounted unit.

I’m wondering if a better use for them, however, is riding shotgun with a tank company (or even embedded down at the platoon level, e.g., an M-SHORAD IFV for every 4-5 tanks) to provide a protective bubble for the tanks to do their thing.

Here’s my thinking:

1. There’s been a huge increase in proliferation of helicopters, drones and guided weapons on the modern battlefield

2. MBTs are increasingly vulnerable to those threats

3. Fitting more armaments/defensive aids onto tanks are dilutive to the MBT’s role to punch through battle lines

4. IFVs, meanwhile, have grown in size and protection and are increasingly equipped with ISTAR features e.g. the British Army’s Ajax

5. Furthermore with M-SHORAD or similar (30/40mm cannon, 2-4x ATGW, 2-4x SAM like Stinger or Starstreak, maybe lasers in the near-future), and being tracked, are able to provide local area defense (surface and air) on any terrain - and keep up with MBTs

6. The dismounted “Infantry” element, meanwhile, can be provided by bringing them through in a second echelon of wheeled, armored (like Boxer or Stryker), but lightly armed (mostly with a HMG) vehicles

Anyone want to speculate on possible Israeli involvement in the current Opposition Forces offensive in Syria? That conflict has been pretty stagnant since 2019... but, the Opposition has apparently taken Aleppo back in less than 72 hours. Official Government forces have been seemingly ineffective if not routed. ❓

This large scale I’m alluding to seemed to be the case even as recently as Iran/iraq war.

In modern combat footage of Ukraine/russia, it always appears to be isolated soldiers, or groups of 3 to 5 at a given time. Moreover Tank warfare appears to be conducted on a 2 vs 1 or one on one basis.

Is it not the case that in previous wars, especially the two great wars, there were hundreds of infantry making advances in concert with tens of tanks? If this is not a misconception as popularized by Hollywood, how come we don’t see these large scale advances in modern warfare; where in modern warfare appears to be relatively small scale.