One year after the invasion of Ukraine: losses, costs and escalation

On the occasion of the first anniversary of the russian invasion A Ukraine, the estimates of casualties – an important variable in assessing the progress of the war – are different and contradictory. On November 10, Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said both sides had 100,000 casualties between dead, wounded there deserters, and that this showed the impossibility of arriving at a definition on the ground and the opportunity to accelerate the peace negotiations. At the end of December, the British Defense Secretary, Ben Wallace, who served under the last three prime ministers, gave the same figure for Russian casualties, but made no mention of Ukrainian casualties. On 21 January – the day after the meeting of the “contact group” of the I WILL TAKE In Brussels-, the Norwegian General Staff maintained that Russian casualties reached 188,000, almost double those reported in November by Milley and in late December by Wallace. On January 22, American intelligence sources, protecting themselves from anonymity, agree to affirm that the Russian casualties there were 180,000. In the days that followed, Norwegian observers reported 180,000 Russian and 100,000 Ukrainian casualties.

At the beginning of February, without specifying its origin, the American media spoke of 150,000 victims for each party. In turn, at this time, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense He said Russia’s death toll exceeded 135,000, which would signify a steep rise from previous estimates, which included wounded and deserters. On February 17, coinciding with the security conference of Munichthe British Ministry of Defense reported that Russia it had claimed 200,000 casualties – almost double the number reported at the end of December – and among them the dead could be between 40,000 and 60,000. At the same conference, the US Secretary of State confirmed the 200,000 Russian casualties . But the essential fact is that the Russian population is three and a half times the Ukrainian population and the losses, beyond their notorious differences, must be projected onto this data.

The other relevant character in the conflict is the economic damage suffered by the parties. In January, the estimated decline in the PBI Russian in 2022 was 2.9%, a figure which, when revised in early February, was reduced to 2.1%. In other words, the economic damage to Russia is relatively small for a war of this magnitude, and having suffered unprecedented economic isolation and technological disconnection is not going to prevent it from continuing the war. As for Ukraine, figures from international financial organizations estimate that the drop in its GDP in 2022 is between 30 and 35%, or a third of its economy. This is explained in a context where most of the country’s infrastructure has been destroyed by the incessant Russian bombardments and where economic production has been reduced, as well as its exports. In addition to the 44 million inhabitants it had at the start of the conflict, 8 million have left the country. They also left their homes without leaving Ukrainian territory, about 6 years. Add to this the increasing conscription demanded by the war effort, the Ukrainian labor force was greatly impoverished.

The reconstruction of Ukraine was launched by the countries of the European Union and NATO, which prompted a large mobilization of companies from these countries to take part. But with the war far from over, the situation is hazy and uncertain. On the one hand, more than 300,000 million dollars have been seized in Russia by the western shoresto which are also added the properties of the so-called “Russian oligarchies”. This money could be used to finance Ukrainian reconstruction. But there are important legal objections to this. Between the delivery of armaments, humanitarian aid there economic support to finance the state, Ukraine reportedly received $150,000 million, most of it in the form of loans from the United States, and the remaining donations.

You may be interested: One year since Russia invaded Ukraine in 50 touching photos

But the conflict is closer to escalating than becoming a chronic war, as the possibilities for negotiation dwindle. Such is the case of the one presented by Henry Kissinger in an article in “The viewerAmerican of December 21, which offers a diplomatic roadmap to try to conduct a negotiation. But this type of initiative is impossible as long as NATO delegates, as hitherto, to the Ukrainian government to decide how and when to negotiate. January showed clear signs of escalation. On the 20th of this month, the meeting of the NATO “contact group” held in Brussels revealed disagreements on the delivery of modern tanks to Ukraine. Before the end of the month, political leaders made the decision to do so, even though the resolution will take months to implement. Immediately, the Ukrainian President asked during his tour of Berlin, Paris and Brussels, the delivery of multipurpose fighters.

Major NATO nations have said they will, but not in the short term, seeking to moderate the escalation. But the president’s visit Biden A Kyiv there warsaw a year after the invasion, and its meeting with the so-called Bucharest group (composed of the three Baltic countries, the four from Central Europe and the two from Eastern Europe, the toughest against Russia in the Union European except for Hungary), ratified support for Ukraine until the defeat of Russia. The answer of Cheese fries was forceful: he abandoned the bilateral treaty with UNITED STATES “New start“oh”Beginning III», which confirms the search for an equivalence of nuclear weapons between the two powers, and confirms the escalation of the conflict and the risk of its extension and its magnitude.

But at the same time, the first anniversary of the conflict comes at a time when the tension between China and the United States is stepping up due to the war in Ukraine. At the Munich conference – which since 1963 has brought together the greatest experts and managers of security in the West– China has rejected proposals to pressure Russia to cease hostilities and renounce its territorial claims. The diplomatic representative of the Chinese Communist Party rejected NATO’s request and argued that China would maintain the relationship with Russia according to its interests, and that its territorial claims should be taken into consideration. It was the Ukrainian president, Volodimir Zelenskywho declared on February 21 that there was no peace initiative from beijingas revealed by Western sources.

The diplomatic representative of the Chinese Communist Party visited Moscow, Berlin and Paris, ratifying this position. At the same time, North Korea’s intercontinental missile launches accelerated the US military rapprochement with Japan there South Korea. Also the tensions around Taiwan are increasing, increasing the military risk around the island. The expansion of US military ties with countries in conflict with China in its South Sea, as is the case with Filipinosincreased tension and the possibility of escalation between Washington and Beijing, in 2023, which did not reach two months.

A year after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the language of war is clearly winning out over diplomacy and the conflict is dangerously escalating.

Continue reading: