By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As of November 22nd, an estimated 60,000 Russian troops, augmented by approximately 11,000 North Korean soldiers, are concentrated in Russia’s Kursk Oblast. These forces aim to establish a buffer zone along the Sumy Oblast border, countering Ukraine’s August incursion. Ukrainian forces, having initially gained ground, are holding their positions in Kursk Oblast while Russian forces have retaken approximately half of the initially lost territory. The ongoing conflict has resulted in significant Russian casualties, with over 7,900 killed, 12,200 wounded, and 717 captured in the three months since the offensive began.
Read the original article here
Russia’s reported deployment of nearly 60,000 troops to Kursk Oblast is a significant development, raising numerous questions and concerns. The sheer scale of this mobilization suggests a major offensive is underway, or at least being prepared, far beyond simply retaking territory lost earlier in the conflict. This concentration of forces indicates a level of commitment that is striking, seemingly far exceeding the initial expectation of a swift recapture.
The deployment speaks to Putin’s desire for control over Kursk Oblast, potentially linked to the upcoming US Presidential election. The perceived urgency of securing this territory before a potential change in US leadership suggests a high-stakes gamble on Putin’s part. This is further evidence of a willingness to sustain significant losses in pursuit of his strategic objectives. The number of Russian casualties resulting from this deployment might be alarming, potentially exceeding thousands, even tens of thousands, making this a very costly operation, a true meat grinder.
This massive troop deployment raises serious questions about the Ukrainian defensive capabilities in the region. The necessity of deploying 60,000 Russian troops suggests a significant Ukrainian presence, meaning Ukraine may be spread thin in other critical sectors, potentially leading to territorial losses elsewhere. The strategy of Russia forcing Ukraine to spread itself thin seems to be paying dividends.
The scale of the Russian deployment—estimated at 60,000 troops—represents a substantial commitment of military resources. At an estimated casualty rate of 2,000 dead or wounded per day, this translates to a month’s worth of casualties, representing a massive expenditure of human life. Yet, even with such losses, Russia appears determined to press on. This indicates a strategy of attrition, hoping to wear down Ukrainian forces through sheer volume, an approach echoing historical Russian military tactics.
The situation highlights a critical aspect of the war—the disparity in manpower between Russia and Ukraine. While technological advancements can even the odds to some degree, the sheer difference in population size between the two countries remains a significant factor. Russia’s ability to replace losses, and the potential contribution of North Korean troops, further exacerbates this challenge for Ukraine. And this challenge isn’t just military, Ukraine has experienced significant population losses since the start of the conflict, making the human cost even more critical.
The deployment underscores the West’s failure to provide sufficient and timely support to Ukraine. The ongoing conflict and its casualties raise questions about the efficacy of current Western support, leading to discussions about the need for more substantial aid in the form of additional troops, advanced weaponry, or a more assertive political stance. The hesitancy of Western powers seems to embolden Russia, pushing Ukraine into an increasingly perilous position.
The ongoing conflict, marked by significant losses on both sides, reflects a complex and tragic situation. The comments highlight the grim reality of the conflict and the human cost borne by both combatants. It also raises the question of whether the continued conflict is worth the immense human toll and what the political ramifications will be once the dust settles. Many of the comments showcase the gallows humor used as a coping mechanism. This shows the gravity of the situation, the need for further action, and the toll the war is taking on all participants.
There’s a clear sense of frustration regarding the lack of decisive action from Western leaders. The criticisms leveled at Western governments highlight a perception of hesitancy and a lack of commitment to providing the necessary support to Ukraine. This perceived weakness fuels concerns about the future of Ukraine’s struggle and raises the spectre of increased casualties and instability, given the significant manpower differences at play.
The ongoing war and the massive Russian deployment to Kursk Oblast have highlighted several key aspects of the conflict. This includes the heavy losses on both sides, the significant manpower disparity between Russia and Ukraine, the perceived hesitancy of Western powers to provide adequate support and the human cost of prolonged conflicts. It is a situation that requires a nuanced approach, taking into account both the military and human aspects of the crisis.