Russian losses – 2025-03-02

By /

09:29 Compilation with graphs of Russian losses per month up to the end of February
(It’s not easy to see exact values in the graphs, but the overall trend is still interesting and gives a fairly good sense of it.)

KWIA has decreased significantly compared to the past few months but still remains high considering the entire war and significantly higher than the average. Compensation in Russia for those who want to pursue a career in Ukraine continues to rise, and at the same time, complaints are voiced by those at the front. Can one sense that they are starting to run out of soldiers?

The losses of tanks have slowly decreased since October 2023 but vary quite significantly and increased in February. As for the type of tanks (not specified above), the losses of T-62s have increased while T-72s have decreased. Perhaps T-62s are easier to refurbish, and it’s not impossible that they have actually started new production of them (though that’s just a guess on my part, I haven’t seen any such information)

Regarding the losses of other armored vehicles, they increased from October 2023, then decreased, and increased again, but in recent months, they have decreased significantly, although the decrease now seems to have leveled off. It’s difficult to draw any conclusions, but if they are indeed starting to run out of soldiers, there may not be the same need for armored vehicles to transport them to the front line. Still, the numbers are higher than average.

Artillery losses increased until the summer of 2024 when they began to decrease significantly, but they have picked up again recently. Presumably, this is because they have received reinforcements from North Korea.

MLRS are so few per day, but the trend is downward, even though February showed a significant increase.

The Russians have really ramped up the use of drones, and February is a new record month.

Anti-aircraft losses fluctuate, but they also increased in February.

Russian losses of soft logistic vehicles have been on a rising trend since the beginning of 2023, increasing almost every single month. Perhaps this is because Russia now uses a larger quantity of simpler vehicles such as golf carts, motorcycles, etc. There are simply more vehicles to disable, which may also be easier targets.

Special equipment, on the other hand, has decreased significantly recently. Perhaps they have moved it further back, or maybe they no longer have as many larger targets that are easy to identify and disable.

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterPost on X


Don't forget to donate, Ukraine's cause is ours! Support Ukraine!

NOTE: Those of you who do NOT want to allow automatic translation of your comments, please go to your profile page and set it.
Hover over your name at the top right, select edit profile, and you will then find the setting under the language settings heading.

53 thoughts on “Russian losses – 2025-03-02”

    1. MatsExtrude

      Yes, that’s correct. The trend has been decreasing losses, and the average from a year ago is 10/day, so 25 is quite high (even though it’s far from record levels). We’ll see if we will see a general increase during March; February was overall a bit lower than before, but in the last few days, it has increased slightly.

      1. MatsExtrude

        Ukraine attempted a summer offensive which unfortunately stalled. They managed to take some areas but then it came to a halt.
        A week into October, the Russians instead began their massive offensive at Avdiivka. They did suffer enormous losses, reportedly setting some records in the beginning that still stand today. They eventually captured Avdiivka and their offensive has been ongoing since then, with larger and smaller territorial gains almost every day.

        Found this one from 2023-10-20. Insanely high losses of heavy vehicles:

        1. MatsExtrude

          In this picture showing tanks and other armored vehicles, between July 1st and December 31st, 2023, you can clearly see how the losses escalated in October.

  2. maggan

    Will there be a new category “donkeys” in the future? 🙂

    If NK hadn’t stepped in, maybe we would have already seen “real” peaks in material losses? Hopefully, we have now seen a Russian peak, and maybe a NK peak in the future?

    On the other hand, I have been waiting for a peak since last summer, so I am obviously too optimistic.

    1. Westley Richard

      I don’t think we should overestimate the impact of the North Korean soldiers. They are not that many in number, language barriers and outdated tactics probably cause a lot of problems for the Russians.

      The deliveries of grenades and other materials from North Korea are a bigger issue.

      1. MatsExtrude

        Of course, it depends a bit. If they were to go “all in” and send 50,000 or more, it would certainly be a problem, but so far I completely agree with you, it’s probably the equipment (mainly artillery pieces and ammunition) that the Russians benefit the most from.

    2. MatsExtrude

      One can see it in two ways, if the losses decrease it could actually be a good sign that the Russians are starting to lose momentum, so it doesn’t necessarily have to be negative.

  3. Pehr

    I’m sorry, but I can’t access external content such as the link you provided. If you can provide the text you would like me to translate, I’d be happy to help with that.

  4. MatsExtrude

    So, Ukraine was ignored here even though the power plant is located on Ukrainian territory, and the route was instead through the Russians.

    “IAEA completed a rotation of experts on Zaporizhzhia NPP via Russian-occupied territory for the first time.
    The International Atomic Energy Agency did not coordinate or get Ukraine’s approval for this rotation, according to Radio Free Europe editor Rikard Jozwiak”

  6. MatsExtrude

    “Around 100 Russian soldiers, who decided they weren’t cut out for war, quickly learned otherwise. After a mutiny at a camp in Yekaterinburg, they were forcibly sent to Luhansk, their phones confiscated, and left without food or water for over a day. A real “honor” serving in the Russian army.”

  7. johan No.1

    Since you have read the posts, you knew this but now Ukraine is turning to China instead 🤣

    I wonder if Trump thinks it’s good?

    Everything always has consequences, and a China that comes out on top here with strained relations with the EU is not impossible

    1. johan No.1

      For if there is any country that can control Putin, it is China.

      And a worse deal than the one the USA proposed would make you unable to get

    2. Lynx

      A development that is quite logical considering the silk road. I wonder what the remnants of the GOP think about their president and the world’s best boy gang around him. Make USA great again first became make Russia great again (at Ukraine’s expense) and now it could end up as make China greater than USA.

  8. johan No.1

    The thing I am infinitely grateful for is that Zelensky did not follow the US in this. Otherwise, we would have definitely had WW3.

    This was our time’s Chamberlain, but UA avoided it.

  10. johan No.1

    Now RU psyops are rolling out.

    -social media is flooded
    “Assassination attempt on Zelensky by a desperate citizen”
    -demonstrations in Ukraine
    -vote of no confidence.

    Everything will fail.

    What do you think Trump will do when China takes over and, through the mineral deal, forces Russia back to its 1991 borders?

    1. MatsExtrude

      So far, it’s only me and Johan No.1 who have that possibility. I’m looking into a solution where you can post images that are linked. Eventually, I might isolate the entire site and allow uploads as well, but that is a security risk.

    1. johan No.1

      Absolut, he sure does 🤣

      He wasn’t even a combatant in the navy, so the veterans are completely furious with him now for talking down Zelensky

      Vance is an idiot.

      1. MatsExtrude

        Trump and his whole entourage are idiots.

        Even you must admit that it would have been better if the Democrats had won and continued to send weapons and ammunition at the same rate as before, rather than this disgusting mess that Trump has caused?

        1. Bal

          Absolut, but neither did they want Ukraine to win. A weak Europe is a good Europe is their attitude. Weakening Europe for Moscow state=Good.

          1. MatsExtrude

            Europe would of course have needed to step forward, regardless of who is in power in the USA, to tip the balance in favor of Ukraine.
            Now, with an unwilling USA, the question is whether Europe itself dares and has the strength to take that step. Perhaps we can replace what the USA has provided, but it will take a little more to give Ukraine the victory. If the USA also completely sours and lifts sanctions and resumes trade with Russia, it will be even tougher to crush them.

        2. MacMelmac

          Harris/Biden would have been a disaster but in a different way. Not through this shitshow with the whole Sesame Street in the White House that we see now, but through their spinelessness and pretend support of the UA.
          I have said it before and I will say it again: the USA is fucked and will never be Great Again! They have had their time of greatness and are done for.

          All logic and pragmatism disappeared after 9/11.

          Europe must rip off the band-aid and start behaving like adults, stop believing that the USA will come if RU or China are stupid. Article 5 is, from an American perspective, only for if they are attacked, they will not care about other countries.

          1. MatsExtrude

            We can establish that we have different opinions on the matter. Personally, I think that a little lukewarm support is better than no support.

            Unfortunately, apparently one does not dare to manage without the USA:
            “Sweden is ready to provide security guarantees to Ukraine under certain conditions, says Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson (M) to TT.
            – It must be based on the existence of American back-up, that there are American security guarantees.”

            https://omni.se/kristersson-vi-kan-bidra-vid-amerikansk-back-up/a/Gy2eOB

    2. johan No.1

      Without the eyeliner, he looks a bit like a Christmas pig.

      The same goes for Musk who has fixed his chin and hairline.

      Not to mention Trump and how he looks without the wig 😁

  17. Analytikern

    Grumpy and JD Vance. – Discussions about how they look or what nonsense they say (literally) lead to zero insight or progression in understanding Europe’s situation and the US position.

    Now I must remind you that it is never possible to judge them from a Swedish or European perspective. It is a big mistake to view the Trump administration as stupid, unintelligent, or lacking focus. However, they act clumsily, rudely, and generally undiplomatically, likely intentionally and likely because it resonates, both domestically and towards Europe (at least to some extent). – Trump et al. know what they want and focus on it, we just seem not to understand that they accept very significant downsides to their actions.

    If we do not understand that Europe’s security is our problem, our cost, this will continue. US finances are a black hole and the US is tired of paying.

    When Uffe starts talking about “American security guarantees,” he just shows that he hasn’t grasped the situation, however that is possible. Apparently, European countries (including Sweden) still believe that this will sort itself out without taking drastic measures to strengthen defense and armament. 10% of GDP (should be around 30% of the budget, those who know can fill in), now, would be a relevant measure. – Seen any of that? Not me, in any case.

    So against this background, the US will do anything (as I have pointed out before) to cut costs. If European countries do not understand this message (spoken for at least 15 years), then Trump et al. will just behave more and more rudely. – The problem of the Ukraine war should be removed from the agenda in the White House and the US budget. No solution to that issue is unthinkable, not even deals with Putin.

    And us? What to do? Everything, no one else will do it for us. – Nuclear program, now? Absolutely. State-owned weapons factories, now? Absolutely. – We must take control of security ourselves, and the longer we delay, the greater the likelihood that I (we/you) will have to use M90, fragmentation vests, and AK in a real situation. How Uffe misses this is incomprehensible, the knowledge is there in the government, but it’s probably not fun to cut into welfare, abolish aid, and let things like environmental regulations and building codes go in the round bin in the corner of the office…

    1. 205

      It is not Russias war against Ukraine. It is Russias war against Europe. It is not Ukraines war against Russia. It is Europes war against Russia.

      We are at war. Russia has a war economy and the Russians have changed their diet to vodka and potatoes.

    2. 205

      Yes, 15 years old and Trump has just tightened it up, in the same way he did during his first term. Tightenings that Biden did not make an effort to change, even though he removed the construction stop of Nordstream II that was introduced during Trump’s term. With Harris as president, the conference in London would also have been held today.

    3. N Eklund

      👍 great post that I needed!

      A journalist mentioned that every president since Clinton had wished for Europe to take greater responsibility for its own security. It may be that this criticism was subdued by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      The only common denominator I can find in everything Trump does is that he wants to fix the US economy, there is another one but it is secondary, I will come back to that another day.

      One should never believe that there is a reason why they act in a certain way. They probably have weighed pros and cons in different scales, and this was the outcome (which says a lot).

      We should be careful not to make Europe look like an unstable chaos continent, as this risks investments and driven and smart people seeking the US. If I may be conspiratorial, Trump does not see this as a disadvantage, increased growth reduces debt as a percentage of GDP.

  18. 205

    Starmer 🇬🇧 reiterates fair peace and security guarantees. He also says that the USA will remain a reliable ally. This was something that the British Prime Minister brought up with Trump when they met in Washington recently.

      1. Westley Richard

        Has Zelensky asked for a ceasefire?
        Has Putin begged and pleaded for a ceasefire?

        If the answer is no to both questions, increase military aid.

      2. Lynx

        According to reports in the press, Starmer, Macron, and Zelensky have agreed on the proposal.

        In essence, it’s the same proposal that Zelensky was willing to discuss with the USA, i.e., robust security guarantees after the ceasefire. The difference is that European countries are getting involved, and the USA only guarantees their security if I understand it correctly.

        A rather obvious first step from Europe’s side – the USA has expressed security guarantees for Europe, many countries also have bilateral security guarantees, and none of this has changed yet.

        However, it is still possible to read between the diplomatic lines that the major continental countries (Poland, Germany, and France) are beginning to see the end of the transatlantic era as it has been.

  19. Westley Richard

    Watched Agenda and nuclear weapons came up as a question, and most parties thought that a nuclear weapon umbrella was good, even though MP and V did not like nuclear weapons, I thought I sensed a change of heart as they weren’t so bad right now.

    Next week, they may discuss where we should place the nuclear weapon bunkers?

  20. Analytikern

    I have to comment on an article in SvD, as an example of when good intentions go terribly wrong. (Hopefully it’s just a newspaper hoax, but…) – A Norwegian fuel company, Haltbakk Bunkers, is claimed to have started refusing to deliver fuel to American military ships in Norway. Referring to a moral compass.

    OK. – What message did the company want to send to the US? What conclusion should the US Navy draw from this?

    Not to be in Norway? Not to buy fuel in Europe? Time to go back home to the US or redeploy to the Pacific? – Or did Haltbakk Bunkers find the American presence troublesome? Did the Americans disrupt Norwegian rearmament? Would it be a shame if the Americans were in Norway in case there was a small Russian test of NATO’s Article 5 near Kirkenes? Best to handle such things on their own? Mission from Putin to scare off/alienate themselves from American forces first?

    Or did the leadership of Haltbakk Bunkers have a hole in their head and went “woke” with full force, in a pleasurable orgasm of signaling goodness?

    It’s a strange time we live in.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top