Main Edition
US
FR
September 18, 2024 - 7:00am
This week, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered that his armed forces be expanded to 2,389,130 personnel, including 1,500,000 servicemen. With the decree set to come into effect on 1 December, this increase of 180,000 troops would make the Russian army the second-largest in the world after China, overtaking both India and the US.
This is only the third expansion of the Russian army since the start of the full-scale invasion back in February 2022, raising the question of why the Kremlin is doing this now. Firstly, Putin must be wondering to what extent his recent threats contributed to the US and UK’s decision to postpone the question of letting Ukraine use long-range missiles against military targets inside Russia. Having seen what can apparently be achieved by throwing his weight around, it is unsurprising that he wishes it to swell even further.
Additionally, this expansion may be necessary to keep Russia’s war machine running. In July, Kremlin sources told Bloomberg that Russian losses were at their heaviest since the full-scale invasion began, with Moscow forced to offer high “signing bonuses” after struggling to attract enough volunteer contract troops to replace those lost. The Ukrainian General Staff claimed this month that Russia’s casualties, including killed and wounded, stood at 1,187 per day in August. The British Ministry of Defence attributed the soaring casualty rate to Moscow simultaneously striving to drive back Kyiv’s forces in Kursk while maintaining pressure on the Pokrovsk axis, predicting that Russia’s losses will average above 1,000 a day throughout September.
Kursk may lie behind the army’s expansion for another reason. Moscow claims to be retaking land seized by Ukrainian forces. However, it is not doing so quickly enough to prevent fresh evacuations of civilians being necessary. Putin, dubbed “the new Stalin” for his autocratic style of rule, also shares with the former Soviet leader the dubious accolade of having suffered a foreign invasion on his watch. Manpower shortages were blamed in the case of Kursk, border positions having been lightly guarded by young, inexperienced conscripts who were supposed to be kept far from the front line.
Conscripts’ families have since issued public pleas for help regarding missing or captured relatives, and the Institute for the Study of War concluded last month that “the continued presence of Russian conscripts in the border areas during the Ukrainian incursion threatens the Kremlin with a potential political crisis regarding casualties among Russian conscripts.” The mothers of mobilised Russian soldiers constituted a powerful opposition force during war in Chechnya and, perhaps with this in mind, Putin has a history of appeasing conscripts’ families, even publicly ordering military commanders to send home mobilised men who had become caught up in fighting in the first days of the Ukraine invasion.
The Kremlin is reportedly reluctant to announce a new wave of conscription for fear of the social discontent it may spark, not to mention the number of men who would try to flee. As such, Putin will most likely turn to volunteer contract soldiers to fill the ranks of his enlarged army, using them to heavily guard the border with Ukraine and so prevent Kyiv’s forces from attempting another daring incursion.
Yet, this will all prove expensive. Research from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace indicates that expanding the armed forces will necessitate considerable investment in the production of new equipment, the payment of high wages to professional soldiers who have grown used to generous benefits, and new military bases. This all comes at a time when Moscow’s labour force, defence budget and military procurement are strained.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFor Russia, a primary producer with a hollowed out industrial base, the alternative to maintaining a large standing army is mass unemployment, which has its own dangers for the regime. And you cannot maintain a large army indefinitely without using it.
As the bankers and environmentalists progressively de-industrialise the USA, preferring to earn their profits in and export their pollution to Asia, we’re likely to see an expansion of military activity on both sides. Meanwhile the Chinese and Indians will likely become more pacifist.
Demographic decline will hollow out both Russia and China.
For both countries it’s a race against time. If they don’t go to war now (Russia) or soon (China) their ability to do so will be lost forever.
Demographic decline will hollow out both Europe and the US
For both its a race against time, if they don’t go to war soon, their ability to do so will be lost forever
Troll alert!
I’m NOT trolling anyone
You believe that Russia, China, Japan ect have serious demographics issues. Yet you ignore your own demographic problems right under your nose, its hilarious
Its time for you to open your eyes
Almost every country in the world, excluding African nations, is facing demographic collapse.
However, the only major players on the world stage who are actively pursuing territorial expansion currently are Russia and China.
Hence my focus on their particular problem.
Why does it feel like many of the commenters on here seem to be sort of defending Russia? Bizarre.
The unspoken motive of open borders….
This article is a bit of a nothingburger.
Aside from calling Putin a ‘dictator’ with a link to a Telegraph article dating back to the last Russian election, the main points seem to be:
Russia is taking heavy casualties (source: a Bloomberg article quoting an anonymous source from within the Kremlin): Yes and no. Certainly they are taking casualties, but the sources I follow point out that the current strategy maximises the use of manpower, while trying to minimise casualties – this is done by spreading troops out and making many, small attacks across a wide salient, all backed up by hefty artillery fire.
It’s politically dangerous to conscript soldiers: yes. This is why Russia has avoided it. The latest expansion is actually quite modest given the overall size of the Russian army and probably is designed to ensure sufficient manpower – not for Ukraine, but for other fronts, proxy and domestic (Syria, the Pacific, Africa, Kalinengrad…)
It’s costly to build up the army: Not really. Russia’s current militarisation is pretty much financed by oil revenues, which have remained robust. In addition, the increased weapons production will find export markets throughout Africa and Asia. Seen through this lens, the increase in troop numbers is an indirect subsidy for the armaments industry. Sort of like the Inflation Reduction Act, but for weapons.
You’re deluded.
No one’s going to want Russian weapons after the disastrous demonstration of them in action over the past two years. They might ship a few more to Africa where the buyers might not care about hte quality. But they’ll lose business in India for sure.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed that oil prices have dropped since February 2022 ($90 to $65 a barrel – and that’s without adjusting for inflation). And that Russian oil sells well below the market price. Still, if you think that’s “robust”, you’re entitled to your opinion !
IMF had Russian 2023 growth at 2.2%. EU was at 0.7%. US at 2.1%
So what ?
That wasn’t the point you were arguing. And to which I responded.
Do you actually disagree with what I wrote ? Or are you just deflecting ?
So you questioned whether oil revenues were ‘robust’. We can’t see prices because there is a lot of trickery in the oil markets, esp with sanctions in place, but we can see the macro effect – which is that the Russian economy is performing well, and we know that’s due to oil revenues, because that’s the main thing they sell. So that’s not deflecting, it’s directly addressing your point.
As regards the quality of Russian weapons, I’m no more an expert than you are, but I follow Weeb Union and History Legends, as well as mainstream sources, and nothing I have read suggests to me that Russia’s weapons are performing better or worse than the Western weapons they are fighting against.
So what we have in Peter B is a foaming-at-the-mouth partisan who ‘wants’ his point of view to be true.
Just you wait till the Abrams tanks and Himars arrive, the Russians won’t know what hit them
Frankly, you know almost nothing about me.
But as we all know, when someone needs to get personal and abusive as you just have, they’ve lost the argument.
Graham seems to be one of the heavier “foaming at the mouth” partisans that I have seen commenting on here, so I wouldn’t take the insults too personally.
He’s beaten western weapons though … the ATACMS don’t work any more … he has hypersonics we can’t stop (whatever the MSM/State Dept/GCHQ try and spin) and the S500 is like nothing we have.
His new ‘Avant Guard’ will be quite a shock if he uses it to put us back in our boxes once the first 1970s tec Storm Shadow crosses his border. (I believe this has already been approved to sow chaos just before the US election)
Tanks planes and Aircraft carriers are clearly over so no one will be selling many of them going forward … Abraham’s and Challengers burn just as well as T80/90’s … who knows what will evolve to replace them but Russia has always been v innovative.
At the start of the war a friend of mine, ex senior military and a contemporary of Putin and his circle, said “never underestimate the capacity of Russians to endure suffering”
This unfortunately appears not to have been factored in by most politicians, commentators and current Western military leadership.
Where exactly is he going to get volunteers from? Wouldn’t anyone who actually wants to fight his war have signed up already?
1000 per day, 1187 per day…
Men treated as disposable.
It’s not only in Russia. It’s the same in every country.
Ukrainian men are forbidden from leaving the country. Ukrainian women have fled and are living in Western Europe, getting married to locals and starting new families.
One woman drowns crossing the English Channel in a rubber boat and politicians refer to it as a humanitarian disaster. A hundred men die and nobody cares.
Maybe someday men will stop being such suckers.
The Russians are not losing 1000 men a day
The number of videos showing successful Ukrainian strikes with drones and other weapons has dropped off a cliff in recent weeks, in this war almost everything is on camera. So why don’t the Ukrainians show us the videos ?
I think you missed the point.
“Throwing at” doesn’t constitute “Throwing away ..” far from…
I suspect that both sides want to talk, which others should be facilitating instead of making the situation worse as in the case of NATO with the mad and reckless scheme to launch long range missiles into Russian
Bet he won’t be turning potential SU25 pilots down because they’re not black though! Russia is now besties with China and Iran and N Korea … AND its economy is firing on all 8 cylinders after all the sanctions … maybe we shouldn’t have been so antagonistic? well done us!