Here’s a little dirty secret that people don’t want to talk about:
Most countries can lose literally millions of men (as in biological male) and be completely fine later. The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War 2 and it still became a superpower for quite a few years later.
A more extreme example was Paraguay in the 19th century War of the Triple Alliance. It faced Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay with predictable result: Something like more than half of the male population was wiped out, including the president. Last I checked, Paraguay is still a country.
Why is this the case? In reproduction, the men are only needed for a second or so (biologically speaking) while women have to carry for 9 months. So long as enough women live, the country will repopulate. And even “better”, there would be fewer people to support in the welfare system.
Russia can probably take 10 million casualties or more and still exist as a country.
Will Putin’s government survive that? Don’t know. Just as importantly, what will replace it? Unfortunately, real-life doesn’t work like movies where the bad guys get replaced by the good guys.
EDIT: A lot of commenters are talking about the Russian population decline. There’s a reason why I don’t bother with it.
Nature has a way of correcting itself. For one, fewer men means more job openings and opportunities. The government can also import immigrants to make up the numbers. Populations tend to plateau out at the “carrying capacity”, so in the long run it will probably bounce back up there.
And secondly, there’s also automation and AI. Fewer workers will be needed in the future, so it doesn’t necessarily mean gloom and doom for the economy—but whether the Russian government is competent enough to manage that is an open question.
You need to put these (estimated and probably inflated) Russian casualty numbers into perspective:
Russia probably cannot afford to lose the same number of soldiers it has already lost since the beginning of the invasion in 2022—but neither can Ukraine.
The same goes for tanks, artillery pieces, drones, and missiles. It’s not just about how much you lose, but how capable you are of replacing those losses.
In this regard, Russia has been completely underestimated by the West—unfortunately.
Two soldiers from a unit in Pokrovsk that I support with equipment. Unlike some armchair generals in the West, the Ukrainian frontline soldiers never underestimated the capabilities of their enemy—they couldn’t afford to. (Picture: All rights by the author of this post)
At the end of 2022, our Western “experts” predicted that Russia would run out of missiles within six months. Now, they’re producing more than ever.
The same goes for all other Russian weapon systems—and for their recruiting efforts as well.
In addition, Russia’s improvements in adapting to the ever-changing conditions on the battlefield have been criminally overlooked by the West (and by Ukraine, too).
Now Ukraine is paying the price.
To briefly answer the question, “Can Russia afford to lose another 1 million soldiers in Ukraine?”—our answer should be:
Probably not, but there’s a high chance our assumptions are wrong. We need to plan as if they can afford those losses.
