By John Q. Hosedrinker 
For the first time since its major counteroffensive in 2023, Ukraine has achieved a net territorial gain, according to prominent war tracker DeepState UA. This shift comes despite a significant 37.5% increase in Russian assaults during May. Analysts from the Institute for the Study of War also reported a net loss of territory for Russia in both April and May, a reversal from previous months’ advances. This change is attributed partly to the appointment of new commanders and Ukraine’s increased effectiveness with mid-range drone strikes targeting Russian logistics.
Read the original article here
It appears that despite launching a significant surge in attacks during May, Russia has actually seen a net loss of territory, according to a Ukrainian war tracker. This presents a rather paradoxical situation, suggesting that more effort isn’t necessarily translating into gains. The numbers are quite stark: over 7,000 distinct assaults were recorded in May, a substantial increase of nearly 37.5% compared to April. This heightened activity, involving more manpower and machinery, ultimately failed to secure any territorial advantage for Russia, and in fact, resulted in a retreat.
This outcome seems to point towards severe logistical challenges plaguing the Russian forces. The increased frequency of mid-range drone strikes against their supply lines has evidently created an “efficiency bottleneck,” hindering their ability to effectively sustain their offensives. When your supply chain is consistently disrupted, even a large number of attacks can become a wasted effort, as troops on the ground may not receive the necessary reinforcements or equipment to consolidate any gains.
There’s a sense that this situation reflects a growing desperation on Russia’s part. The idea is that they are running low on crucial resources – ammunition, funds, and even personnel. Some observations suggest that the desperation for manpower is so severe that soldiers are resorting to makeshift solutions, like welding shovels for combat, and that even the manufacturing of vital weaponry is reliant on repurposed components, like chips scavenged from household appliances.
Many are looking at this trend as a potential turning point in the conflict. Prestigious Western sources have begun to suggest that the tide is shifting, and some envision a future where signs of normal life, even symbolic ones like Pride parades, could return to Moscow. This perspective suggests that the decision made in 2014 to resist Russian influence has proven to be the correct one, forcing Russia into a defensive posture that now appears to be crumbling under its own weight.
For a considerable period, Russia has managed to push forward, albeit slowly, because they could at least point to some tangible progress. Now, however, they appear to be completely stalled and are even losing ground. This stagnation and regression must surely be a significant blow to morale within Russia itself.
The extensive resources Russia has been dedicating to what are described as civilian atrocities – attacks on apartment buildings, for instance – are seen as counterproductive. Instead of weakening Ukrainian resolve, these actions are reportedly having the opposite effect, further motivating Ukrainian defenders. The goal of increasing Russian casualties, perhaps aiming for a grim milestone, appears to be an ongoing objective in response to these attacks.
Indeed, the tactic of striking civilian infrastructure like apartment buildings is not seen as a way to secure territory. Similarly, drone and missile attacks alone do not achieve territorial control. When troops are suffering heavy losses, resupplying the front lines becomes incredibly difficult, and holding onto any existing ground becomes a major challenge.
There’s a degree of skepticism about the information reaching the very top of the Russian leadership. The suggestion is that reports might be overly optimistic, perhaps painting a picture of overwhelming success that doesn’t align with the reality on the ground. It raises the question of whether those in power are truly aware of the extent of their struggles, or if they are being fed distorted information.
The question of whether ordinary Russians are aware of the true state of affairs, and whether they are permitted to discuss it without facing severe repercussions, is also brought up. The inability to freely discuss the war openly, with the risk of imprisonment, creates a distorted information landscape.
While the exact casualty figures are difficult to ascertain definitively, as both sides are engaged in an information war, the general consensus from various trackers suggests a significant toll. It’s noted that these figures often encompass not just deaths but also injuries that permanently disable soldiers, rendering them unfit for further military service.
The dynamics of the fighting itself are also highlighted. It’s described as Russian troops advancing on foot in small numbers across open ground, while Ukrainian forces are dug into fortified positions and not actively trying to capture territory. This disparity in approach suggests a highly uneven battlefield.
When news reports indicate Ukraine taking ground, it’s often clarified that this involves clearing out small, isolated enemy groups rather than engaging in large-scale offensives against well-defended positions. This distinction is important for understanding the true picture of territorial shifts.
The casualty ratio is also a key point of discussion. A 1:2 loss ratio, where for every Ukrainian soldier lost, two Russian soldiers are lost, would be considered exceptionally low for an attacking force. Given the observed slow pace of front-line changes, the narrative suggests Ukraine is primarily focused on repelling Russian attacks, making a 1:2 ratio quite plausible. This ratio may also include soldiers who sustain recoverable injuries, some of whom can return to duty relatively quickly.
A 1:3 ratio is considered a more conservative estimate, with a 1:5 ratio potentially occurring in specific areas where Russia is intensely pushing forward. These figures underscore the significant human cost for Russia in its current offensive operations.
The observation that Russia is purging its population of prisoners, ethnic minorities, and those seeking financial gain through combat suggests a limited pool of recruits. It’s questioned whether this pool will eventually be exhausted, especially since Russia cannot afford to deplete resources from major population centers like Moscow and St. Petersburg without risking further public backlash. The dismissal or elimination of numerous generals further indicates internal turmoil and a struggle for effective leadership.
The initial war plans and capabilities that were presented on paper have apparently not translated into reality on the battlefield. This disconnect between perceived strength and actual performance is a recurring theme. The question of whether the Russian population is even aware of these shortcomings, or if dissent is actively suppressed, remains a critical aspect of the ongoing situation.
The economic strain on Russia is also becoming increasingly apparent. The inability to properly arm and train the vast numbers of troops being deployed means that simply sending waves of soldiers is not a sustainable strategy. The war’s economic impact is a growing concern, alongside questions about the future leadership and the potential for a post-Putin Russia.
While Ukraine is understandably guarded about announcing its own losses, the transparency of families publishing obituaries is noted as a way to provide a more accurate, open-source count of casualties. This suggests that while official figures might be scarce, the human cost is being documented and acknowledged.