Russian authorities say they need 5 million troops to win in Ukraine (according to Ukraine)
Ukrayinska Pravda (Ukrainian Truth) published a story “Russia tells its troops there must be 5 million of them for victory.” In it, the newspaper outlined the presumed troop levels Russia would need to subjugate Ukraine. The piece starts,
“The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reports that the military and political command of Russia is spreading a document called "Conclusions of the war with NATO in Ukraine" among the military. It is stated in the document that 5 million Russian troops must be deployed in order for Russia to win.”
Top StoriesCLICK TO READHey, Republicans, I want my countryback, too!
The source of this startling statistic is Oleksii Hromov, the deputy head of the Main Operative Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Hromov said at the briefing,
"A part of this ‘masterpiece’ [‘Conclusions of the war with NATO in Ukraine’ – ed.] among other things focuses on the main problems of the Russian occupying forces such as the commanders’ inability to command troops, low-level of discipline and military training, obsolescence of armament and military equipment, commanders’ inability to make decisions without obligatorily coordinating them with higher command, etc.
Meanwhile, it is stated in every document that the Defence Forces of Ukraine have a quite high level of equipment, and commanders on all levels can make decisions in combat conditions themselves.
Pretty damning, no? Maybe. However, take the piece with a bucket of salt. The source is a high-ranking Ukrainian military official — with zero incentive to downplay Russian needs or even to be objective. On his word alone, there is no evidence there is any such document, let alone that the Ukrainian analysis of the same, should it exist, has any regard for truth.
On the other hand, the evidence is clear that whatever troops, ordnance, supplies, and tactics the Russians are using in Ukraine are not getting the job done. So while the numbers may be hyperbole, Russia needs to step up its game. Can it?
The media outlet for the piece, Ukrayinska Pravda, while it is Ukrainian, is generally regarded as being a straight-shooter and not a Ukrainian Fox News. This online newspaper was founded on April 16, 2000, by Gergiy Gongadze and Orlena Prytula, in reaction to the censorship practiced by the then-autocratic rulers of Ukraine.
The married Gondadze and single Prytula were lovers. On September 16, 2000, Gongadze disappeared after leaving Prytula’s apartment. His decapitated, acid-burned body turned up four months later. In July 2016, Prytula's new lover, married Belarussian journalist Pavel Sheremet was blown up in her car after he left her apartment. That seems damning evidence the newspaper was doing some uncomfortably accurate reporting.
For the sake of argument, let us accept that the story of the 5 million needed troops is true — or at least that Russia needs substantially more troops in Ukraine than it has now. Is that feasible? I am no military expert, but it seems like a pipe dream.
The Russian military nominally comprises 1 million active personnel and 2 million reservists. Russia invaded Ukraine in March 2022 with 190,000 troops. On paper, that leaves plenty of soldiers, already trained and in uniform, ready to beef up the invasion force if needed. That need soon appeared as the Russians failed to take Kyiv — and then retreated from lands they had occupied in the East.
Of course, not all of these additional forces are available for service in Ukraine. For a start, the Russian navy has been rendered irrelevant in the conflict. And they account for c,155,000 of the active personnel. Russia, whose neighbors include NATO and China, must maintain security on its thousands of miles of borders. In addition, 50,000 troops staff their nuclear force. And some unknown number (probably not large) is assigned to the Russian Space Force (yes, they have one too, and it is older than ours).
And the numbers are suspect — especially the 2 million reservists. Russia's recent announcement that it plans to conscript 300,000 citizens, and is resorting to prisoners, is evidence that Russia does not have enough soldiers. And the published troop strengths are merely paper totals.
Note. The following section is dense with "back of the envelope" calculations. And many might find it boring. If you are not a fan of numbers, skip ahead to where it says, “Finally, we are done with numbers.”
The Russian military is majority male. And the rules forbid women in front-line positions, including equipment maintenance and logistical roles. So Russia will have to find their cannon fodder among Russian men. The country has a population of over 147 million, of which 24.4 million are men between 18 and 45.
For Russia to scare up another 5 million soldiers, it would need to conscript 1 in 5 of the 24.4 million. (I think it is safe to assume there is not a great rush to enlist) There are 4 million university students in Russia 44% — or 1.76 million — are male. If the authorities excuse college students from service, that leaves 22.64 million men of service age.
The unemployment rate in Russia is 5%, meaning that 1.132 million Russian men of fighting age are not employed. In addition, there are 550,000 prisoners - probably 400,000 an appropriate age. Together this means around 1.5 million Russian men in a suitable age group, who are not in University or do not have a job, are available to fight, assuming they are all fit enough. And not all will be — even by Russia’s presumably lax standards.
The point is that Russia will have to strip its universities and take employed men in a draft to get to 5 million. Countries have done that. However, that commitment has been during existential threats like WWII. Or during regional conflicts requiring troop levels far lower than Russia now needs. For instance, in 1968, when the population of the US was 200 million, the US military deployed 550,000 men in Vietnam.
Finally, we are done with numbers.
The numbers show that raising 5 million troops is a hell of a challenge. But there is more. How would the Russians outfit these new soldiers? There are already stories of Russian conscripts forced to buy their own equipment. And what military ordinance and supplies the Russians thought they had in store turned out to be Potemkin arsenals of broken vehicles and boxes filled with fake versions of what they supposedly contained.
For years the common wisdom was that Russia, protected by the threat of its enormous nuclear force, would not have to fight conventional wars. The last time it did, in Afghanistan, its invading army totaled only 115,000 troops. And the USSR’s kleptocrats, siphoning off the military budget, left enough stuff to supply that amount of soldiers.
But the times have changed under Putin. The country's annual $65 billion defense budget has bought yachts, not warships - and private jets, not fighter planes. New equipment and maintenance were not priorities for Putin’s sticky-fingered cronies, whose grift made organized crime families in the US look like amateurs.
Russia also lacks the financial resources of the USSR. Its economy is smaller than Italy’s. And it is dependent on fossil fuels. It is hostage to the demand for and price of one commodity. So far, the Iranians, North Koreans, and possibly the Chinese are selling them stuff. But how long will Russia's currency reserves last? After boosting them to $635 billion in the month before the invasion, by October, the reserves had declined to $549 billion — a decline of $10.75 billion a month. And things will only worsen as Russia burns through existing military stockpiles and has to buy everything fresh.
It is safe to say that should Russia need 5 million — or even 500,000 — extra troops, they will be hard-pressed to find them and even less able to equip them. Ukraine might not win, but it is never going to lose.