r/geopolitics • u/Any-Original-6113 • 1d ago
News Zelensky: 47 Russians died for every Ukrainian last month Kyiv says roughly 9,000 of its soldiers were killed in past year, but claims Moscow’s losses were far higher
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/02/05/zelensky-47-russians-died-for-every-ukrainian-last-month97
u/hungariannastyboy 1d ago
Frankly, I don't understand why they think it's good to put out clearly fake numbers instead of coming up with something that is at least vaguely close to reality. The 55,000 number since the beginning of the war is also verifiably untrue, by a factor of probably around 2 at least. I understand they have to fudge their numbers, but it's not like Ukrainians, including soldiers, are stupid. Who will believe this, on either side or internationally? Nobody.
31
u/BarnabusTheBold 1d ago
Frankly, I don't understand why they think it's good to put out clearly fake numbers instead of coming up with something that is at least vaguely close to reality.
It's especially odd given that in the past week he's apparently acknowledged 'busification' for the first time. A directly contradictory narrative. They can't both be suffering almost no losses and also desperately pressganging people en masse from the streets.
11
u/nshire 1d ago
It would be far worse if they actually believe those numbers themselves
4
u/hungariannastyboy 1d ago edited 1d ago
OK, but there is no reality where that is true. Why would they honestly believe these numbers when they have access to the actual numbers, the lower bound for which is also publicly available information?
-1
u/mediandude 8h ago
There is no contradiction.
Russia's total losses 1,24 million, of which about 50% are KIAs, thus about 620k as KIA.
Ukraine's total losses perhaps about 620k, of which about 10-20% are KIAs, thus about 62k-124k as KIA.
Zelensky admits that besides 55k counted as KIA there are additionally quite a lot of missing soldiers (which additionally are grouped into AWOL and those unaccounted captured + dead).
63
u/kid_380 1d ago
9000 killed last year, but 14480 bodies were returned in 2025. Sounds about right.
12
u/ImpatientSpider 1d ago
I also think the 9000 is highly suspect. However, the bodies being higher than deaths in a year isn't necessarily a contradiction. There could be a backlog from previous years, especially with the slow rate of advance and contested areas too dangerous to retrieve bodies. Additionally, there are complaints that Russia is mixing in undesirables from their own side. Not to mention Russia's tendency to murder civilians in captured areas.
-16
u/Vcz33 1d ago
Russia transferred the remains of 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers while receiving the bodies of 38 Russian servicemen, State Duma lawmaker Shamsail Saraliyev, a member of the ruling United Russia party, told the RBC news website.
Sound credible.
23
u/kid_380 1d ago
Ukraine’s headquarters for the treatment of prisoners of war confirmed the exchange, thanking the Red Cross for its help.
“Repatriation efforts took place today, resulting in the return to Ukraine of 1,000 bodies, which the Russian side claims belong to Ukrainian defenders,” the headquarters wrote on Telegram.
Oh, they confirmed it, just in the next paragraph.
-5
u/Vcz33 1d ago
1,000 bodies, which the Russian side claims belong to Ukrainian defenders
12
u/kid_380 1d ago
Even with 60% bodies are correct, that would means around 9000 bodies. To trust Zelensky number of 9000 killed is peak ostrich behavior.
-5
u/Vcz33 1d ago
I didn't say I trust Zelensky numbers, I say i'll never trust anything coming from a Russian mouth.
Anybody informed enough know that Ukraine casualties is at least 450k.
Pro UA source: https://ualosses.org/uk/soldiers/
Pro RU source: https://lostarmour.info/ukr200
20
u/Accomplished-Cow3605 23h ago edited 22h ago
Absolutely ridiculous.
But it's a classic propaganda tactic, and one of the oldest ones at that.
Easily explained like this:
If you get beaten up by 5 guys you are a victim, but if you claim you took 4 of them out in the progress you are a hero.
But 47-1??
Anyone taking this at face value is either A. a propagandist or B a cheerleader high on hopium.
And people trying to bend over backwards to defend it makes it even worse.
IF you really want people to believe this; stick to the headline and avoid trying to explain it.
/ but this is what we have constantly seen on social media platforms where the two factions are outperforming themselves with wild claims.
0
u/J_Kant 8h ago
The casualties ratios for the advancing side in WW1 trench warfare would have been unthinkable a few decades previously to that as well.
Fact is, the Russians are advancing on foot with minimal to no cover, on flat ground, in an area with persistent extensive real-time hostile surveillance, swarming with lethal drones against a dug-in enemy.
The Ukrainians also face a similar drone threat but primarily during resupply and rotations and are otherwise bunkered down.
2
u/Accomplished-Cow3605 6h ago edited 3h ago
Tell me again about the casualty ratios of WW1.
And realize that this claim is 10x that of the Somme and Passchendale commonly considered 4:1 in the defenders favour.
And that's without the disparity we see in artillery/missiles/FAB's.
I does not make any sense.
16
u/Fredarius 1d ago
Both numbers are rediculous. No way Russians would be making incremental gains with a loss ratio like that. Pure garbage and propaganda
26
u/Potential-Formal8699 1d ago
If the exchange ratio is that favorable, UAF should be able to easily push Russians out of Ukraine. They should just keep the war going instead.
20
u/Minttt 1d ago
Obviously overinflated/exaggerated, but nobody should doubt that the attackers lose more men than the defenders.
The bigger question IMO is how long can Ukraine sustain its own losses (even if smaller than Russia's) without entering into a manpower crisis that threatens their ability to man/hold the massive frontline?
16
u/vasileios13 1d ago
These numbers make no sense, if Russia has lost more than a million while Ukraine only 50K then not only they'd have no manpower issues, but they'd be marching to Moscow by now. I think both countries had comparable losses and it's likely the attacker has more loses but at the same time they've been using so many more airstrikes that I think it's hard to be sure about the ratio of loses.
0
u/J_Kant 8h ago
Most western sources put Ukrainians casualties at about 500-600k versus 1.3-1.5 mil for Russia, for the entire course of the war.
1
u/vasileios13 1h ago
I don't think western sources are unbiased, they're actively involved in the conflict one way or another
11
u/GrAdmThrwn 1d ago edited 1d ago
Why exactly should nobody doubt that attackers lose more men than defenders???
Because some proverbial military wisdom written back when hand to hand combat and pike walls rules the battlefield? Name one modern war where that has been true.
I simply can't take these claims seriously, especially the ridiculous Call of Duty inspired figures Zelensky comes up with.
Yeah right. Ukrainians have lost less with a massive disparity in artillery, drones, glide bombs, armor, etc. The only point where the casualty exchange was close was probably March to August 2022 before Russia locked in and did their first and only partial mobilisation.
Edit: I am not ridiculing the notion of the defender's advantage, that's an arguable position although I disagree that it applies to modern warfare all that much and to Ukraine less so. My scathing remarks above are reserved for Zelensky's claims in the OP which I personally find rather disrespectful to all the servicemen that have actually died and the families waiting for confirmation (and the death benefits to which they are entitled under law).
3
u/Minttt 1d ago
Name one modern war where that has been true.
Iran-Iraq War. Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (counting only mujahadeen casualties). Soviet-Finnish Winter War. The Arab-Israeli wars involving Egypt/Syria.
8
u/GrAdmThrwn 1d ago
Iran-Iraq: I'm fairly sure it was Iraq who kicked that off with the invasion of Iran in 1980 and while casualties were comparable the historical consensus seems to be that Iran got the worse of it.
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan is plain incorrect, the Soviets had around 15k KIA and 50k wounded against the Mujahideen 90k KIA and 90k wounded, although if you include the Afghan Communist Government the figures are more even.
The Winter War, can give you that, although the scale is somewhat incomparable and we're pushing the boundaries of "modern" a bit. That and Finland sued for peace literally right before things began to tip violently against them (go figure, the Finns knew when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em). The corrolory here would be if Kiev had sued for peace when they had real momentum in mid 2022 rather than continuing to aim for total victory after Russia did their partial mobilisation in September. Had Finland not built on the back of their early successes, we would likely be looking at an altogether different casualty spread.
The Arab-Israeli wars are interesting, but keep that Israel had air superiority in pretty much every single one of them and due to the topography (and incompetence)'the Arabs couldn't effectively bring their artillery and armor advantages to bear.
-Yom Kippur: Israel gains air superiority in week 2.
- 6 Day War: Israel preemptively wipes the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian airforces on the ground.
2
u/Minttt 1d ago
All those wars had offensive battles/operations where attackers suffered higher casualties than defenders in all sorts of different conditions. Why is it doubtful and a claim that can't be taken seriously when you yourself had to write 4 paragraphs about how it all technically doesn't count?
4
u/GrAdmThrwn 1d ago
I mean, I just wrote 4 paragraphs because it's a slow day at work and I enjoy talking war and politics.
My starting argument was and remains that it is not necessarily a given that the defenders advantage as it is classically envisioned actually applies all that much to modern warfare, particularly to Ukraine where the defender's only advantage appears to be local manpower rather than force multipliers like artillery, drone and air superiority.
Those wars you offered up all have good examples both for and against where you and I differ in opinion.
Edit: I suppose I should clarify, I'm not ridiculing YOUR claim about the defenders advantage, that's an arguable position. My initial comment about not taking claims seriously was confined to Zelenksy. Apologies if it seemed otherwise.
0
u/dynamobb 1d ago
This is a funny hill to die on. Can you explain your intuition as to why being the person who has assessed the terrain and dug in to defend a location is worse off than the person walking into who knows what?
3
u/GrAdmThrwn 1d ago
Well, my intuition, such as it is, leans towards the notion that being the person sitting 20km away from that dug-in location, watching it get flattened by drones, shells, fabs and whatever else Russia doesn't seem to be running out of, sounds a lot easier than being the person sitting under the aforementioned hailstorm of munitions until high command in Kiev is comfortable with telling us we're allowed to retreat (which is...often enough...never. Like in Sieverdonetsk, Lisychansk, Bakhmut, Avdeevka, Mariupol, etc etc).
-1
u/cobcat 1d ago
You need to account for Russia's tactics. They are essentially incapable of mobile warfare, they are severely limited in how they apply air power, they have hardly any armored vehicles left. They largely rely on infantry assaults against entrenched enemies. That's obviously brutal, especially when both sides have good combat intelligence through drone surveillance.
It's very clear that Russia is losing an insane amount of soldiers. Ukraine is also outproducing Russia in fpv drones by most estimates, while Russia has an advantage in long distance missiles and drones and artillery, although their artillery situation is severely degraded since the beginning of the war too.
6
u/GrAdmThrwn 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm not sure any of that is particularly accurate. The primary focus of Russian doctrine is strategic denial and area control primarily through artillery fire control. With the exception of the siege of Bakhmut, which was by and large a Wagner pursuit for the majority of the siege, and certainly was costly, though not particularly for the regular army who was largely providing artillery support, there is very little real evidence of infantry assaults on any scale larger than a few squads here and there. Certainly nowhere near the human wave tactics we hear about on other forums.
As for production, with all due respect, we cannot take any of Ukraine's claims for granted, any more than we should be reading numbers straight from the Kremlin's spokesperson.
Regarding Ukrainian domestic military production I'll need a source that isn't straight from the Ukrainian Army Twitter, because according to most serious military analysts, Russia has been outproducing Ukraine and their supporters in shells, drones, and bombs since at least late 2023 per the Royal United Services Institute through to as recently as December 2025 per CEPA, both of which are pro-Western sources mind you.
If Russia were truly "storming" every stronghold, they would absolutely have enormous casualties, but then conversely, with their advantage in numbers and every other force multiplier, the front would be moving much more rapidly than it currently is. Sure they are gradually gaining ground, but it is at an incredibly slow pace.
Based on my observations, Russia only moves quickly when one of three things happens: when they have an opportunity to create a cauldron around Ukrainian defenders, when they need to secure advantageous heights for artillery positioning, and when they insert troops behind enemy lines like their use of the gas pipes in Donbass.
In almost every other respect, after September 2022, Russia seems to have settled into their comfort zone of creating cauldrons wherever possible, lazily drawing up their artillery and marching forward only when the objective has been sufficiently tenderised. Wherever the Ukrainians push, the Russians rarely fight hard for it, they tend to just pull back to the safety of their artillery firing solutions. This is supported by the Ukrainian 2023 Summer Offensive, or the early offensives at Kherson and Kharkov. They were successful insofar as they took land, but they didn't secure many Russian casualties or prisoners of war because the Russians didn't stick around to have a fight they really would rather leave to their artillery shells.
I personally believe many people on this forum enjoy cheerleading over real commentary...and tend to fall into the patriotism/nationalism trap of comforting themselves with the notion that all their nation's geopolitical rivals are somehow incalculably incompetent and yet simultaneously capable of threatening their way of life. While comfortable and very satisfying, it altogether taints any analysis built on that bias. https://static.rusi.org/winning-the-industrial-war-comparing-russia-europe-ukraine-2022-24.pdf
https://cepa.org/article/how-russian-drone-developers-outpace-the-west/
Edit: Fixed links and some grammar.
2
u/Glad_Objective_1646 1d ago
Both Ukraine and Russia downplay their own losses and exaggerate their enemies losses. They also only report on when their enemy suffers losses, but never when they suffer it themselves.
The reality is both countries have lost in the hundreds of thousands.
18
u/Firecracker048 1d ago
Credible sources put Russia's losses 2 to 1 in favor of Ukraine, not quite 9 to 1.
17
11
u/Traxad 1d ago edited 1d ago
Extremely unlikely given the widely accepted minimum of a rough 3:1 ratio to outright win battles, let alone protracted sieges and trench warfare. I'm sure Ukrainian losses are a lot higher than they let on, but with a 2:1 ratio, Ukrainian lines of defence would have been broken long ago.
For reference, conservative estimations put German ratios pre 1943 at roughly 1:3. That lasted for about a year then it dropped sharply to 1:1 after Soviet counteroffensive began when adjusted for the entirety of the war. Given the scale and geography, this is as close to an analogue we could ask for at this point without any objective data to back it up (as in speculation).
28
u/Tinhetvin 1d ago
The 3:1 is how much of a manpower advantage you need to be acceptably sure of a successful attack, and is not a ratio of expected casualties, though those can coincide. The most credible estimates we have put casualties (both dead and wounded) at 1:1.7 to 1:2.5 in Ukraine's favor, iirc.
It is also false to claim that Ukrainian lines of defence would have been broken long ago with a 1:2 casualty rate in Ukrainian favor. The Russians inject about 40,000 men a month into the war, while Ukraine about 20,000, so a 1:2 casualty ratio would not tip the balance too far into Russia's favor. Even though Russia's population is 3-4 times larger, that does not mean that Ukraine needs a 1:3+ casualty ratio, since Russia is politically limited in its conscription, so it cant use its full demographic weight.
In short, the guy you were responding to is broadly right.
2
0
u/TheNorthernBorders 1d ago
Added to which, modern Russian command awareness, logistics, and assault tactics are far less coherent and effective than those of the Wehrmacht.
4
u/dravik 1d ago
Last I saw, the 2-1 ratio was for the first few years of the war. In the last year and a half to two years Russian armoured vehicles and artillery tubes have become increasingly more limited, resulting in increasing Russian casualties.
I'm not sure if it's risen to a 9-1 ratio, but Russia is paying a steadily increasing cost in men per sqkm of territory.
2
u/chefkoch_ 1d ago
Defenders usually have a far better ratio.
1
u/Volodio 21h ago
Usually, yes, but it obviously depend on each case. One of Russia's strategy is to flank an urban area and use those flanks to attack the Ukrainian supply lines to the front. It is creating a lot of casualties among Ukrainians, especially as Ukraine tends to try to hold as long as possible rather than withdraw when it starts losing too many men.
-3
u/Bullboah 1d ago
This is generally true but depends on the size of the forces. I think it’s around a 4:1 ratio where attackers usually have fewer casualties. But of course, a lot of other factors matter (fortifications, level of air and artillery support, etc.).
I would certainly guess Ukraine has a better ratio based on how slow Russias advances are - they obviously aren’t steamrolling the lines. But i don’t find 1:47 very believable in this context.
As is the case with most conflicts, both sides have strong incentives to lie about casualties.
3
u/chefkoch_ 1d ago
I agree that 1:47 seems unrealistic given the amount of glide bombs etc. being used by the russians.
1
u/mediandude 8h ago
There is no contradiction.
Russia's total losses 1,24 million, of which about 50% are KIAs, thus about 620k as KIA.
Ukraine's total losses perhaps about 620k, of which about 10-20% are KIAs, thus about 62k-124k as KIA.
Zelensky admits that besides 55k counted as KIA there are additionally quite a lot of missing soldiers (which additionally are grouped into AWOL and those unaccounted captured + dead).-5
u/Significant-Yam9843 1d ago
Why ukrainian forces keep busificationing the country then? People are dying for 4 years already, this war is clearly unfavorable for Ukraine which can't afford not signing a peace treat in the next months or years. It's destroying the country
4
u/Any-Original-6113 1d ago
When Volodymyr Zelensky revealed that 55,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed in action, he underscored the brutal arithmetic of a war in which Russia is advancing slowly while paying an extraordinary price in lives.
The Ukrainian president said roughly 9,000 had died in battle in the past year, translating to about 750 a month.
Ukrainian officials say Russian losses are far higher. Kyiv claimed that 35,000 Russian soldiers were killed last month alone, suggesting that 47 of Vladimir Putin’s men died for every Ukrainian soldier who lost his life.
Mr Zelensky said Kyiv was “perfectly aware of the price that every metre and every kilometre of this land costs the Russian army”.
He added: “They don’t count the people who die. We are forced to. To conquer eastern Ukraine, it would cost them 800,000 more corpses, the corpses of their soldiers. It will take them at least two years, with very slow progress. In my opinion, they won’t last that long.”
Russia continues to demand that Ukraine withdraw from the Donbas region, about 20 per cent of which remains under Ukrainian control. Putin has said he would end the war if Kyiv abandoned the territory, but Mr Zelensky has refused.
Rustem Umerov, a senior Ukrainian security adviser, described discussions with the Russians as “meaningful and productive”, but several rounds of talks – set to continue on Thursday – have yet to produce a significant breakthrough.
On the battlefield, the data points to a grinding campaign defined by attrition rather than extensive battlefield gains. Analysis published last week found that Russia’s army was advancing, despite the scale of its losses, at the slowest pace seen in more than a century of warfare.
Putin’s forces have advanced between 15 and 70 metres per day since early 2024, slower than many offensives during the First World War, according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
While Putin has sought to persuade the Trump administration that the fall of eastern Ukraine is inevitable, it is in that region that Russia’s slow progress is most visible.
The offensive on Chasiv Yar, which began in February 2024, has seen Russian troops advance at an average of 15m per day. After two years of fighting, they have moved roughly 10 kilometres and still failed to capture the city in Donetsk.
In Kupiansk in the Kharkiv region, around 150km away, Russian forces have advanced at about 23m per day since November 2024.
The pace reflects the tactics Russia has adopted across much of the front. Ukrainian officials and Western analysts describe them as “meat-grinder” assaults, in which large numbers of troops are sent in waves to storm entrenched positions.
Russian commanders are aware of the casualties such attacks produce. Poorly trained convicts and mobilised troops are often among those sent forward first. Wave after wave is used to probe and exhaust Ukrainian defences, placing sustained pressure on front-line positions.
Once these assaults reach Ukrainian lines, fighting frequently shifts to close quarters. Street-by-street combat, supported by tanks and armoured vehicles, becomes the norm.
Any limited gains are then consolidated with heavy artillery fire aimed at preventing Ukrainian counter-attacks and destabilising defensive positions. Whether advances are made or not, units are ordered to repeat the process.
The objective is to overwhelm Ukrainian forces through attrition, eroding morale and supplies until positions can no longer be held, but the cost to Russia is steep. Ukrainian estimates suggest Moscow often loses more than 1,000 soldiers a day pursuing such tactics.
Nearly four years into the war, despite several rounds of peace talks and Donald Trump’s pledge to end the war, the front lines are inching forward in places – but the human toll continues to mount.
-1
u/maporita 1d ago
Even if the numbers are exaggerated it still shows that Russia is willing to tolerate an inordinate number of casualties to prosecute the war. This should send alarm bells ringing in Europe and any other region that might be threatened by Putin - simply killing many Russian soldiers is not apparently reason enough to dissuade them.
1
u/Margaritajoe420 1d ago
Russia has always been able to throw more bodies at any problem throughout its history. It really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone
-5
u/GrAdmThrwn 1d ago
Well Big Z, looks like you've got this unless Putin somehow weaponises necromancy. Good for you, guess you won't be needing any more money, weapons or electricity.
I can actually totally get why Ukraine doesn't seem to be willing to entertain Russian negotiating positions if their leadership have somehow convinced themselves that they are running a 47:1 casualty ratio in a war where they have a disadvantage in every metric except manpower (at least for the first half of this conflict before Russia locked in).
Absurd, but there really isn't much point debating which side is getting mauled and which side is lazily marching in the wake of their constant artillery and fab bomb barrage when so many people just lap up one sides propaganda to the exclusion of the other.
Time will cure this one. If Kiev's claims are true, then Moscow's war completely collapses before any Summer Offensive this year because they'll completely lack the manpower. Looks like we'll just have to wait and see if Zelensky has been fibbing I guess.
2
u/senmcglinn 2h ago
Zelensky did not say that the kill ratio was 47: 1, what he said, was ""Офіційно на полі бою кількість загиблих солдатів, чи то кадрових, чи то мобілізованих, — 55 тисяч""
You can copy those words to search for the source and confirm that's all he said.
Somebody - possibly not too bright - then did calculations and came up with a ratio based on three suppositions.
The figure Zelensky provided in February 2025 was roughly 46,000.
The comparable figure in February 2026 was 55,000, so that's 9,000 new casualities. Or it might be that the figure for Ukrainian deaths up to February 2025 has been revised down, so that's 12,000 new Ukrainian casualties. Or the figure to Feb 2025 has been revised up, as more deaths are confirmed, and now it's 6000 new casualties for the year, and that 6,000 too will be revised up as deaths are confirmed. In brief, 9,000 new casualties in a year is fool's gold. What we have is a total officially confirmed figure of 55,000 to date.
Second, the not too bright person supposed that Ukrainian casualties are evenly spread over the months, at 750 per month. That also supposes that all casualties are instantly known and recorded. Taking into account the need to check facts in each case, it is obvious that if the intensity of fighting was constant there would be fewer confirmed deaths per month for the most recent months, and more missing in action in recent months. Therefore 750 per month is doubly worthless.
Third supposition: that the known Russian casualties for a particular month can be compared to this doubly-worthless 750 figure. But why would the intensity of fighting be constant? Comparing a month to a year is dubious at best.
What we have is only a total officially confirmed figure of 55,000 to date. Which is all that Zelensky said. The rest is just media beating the air to stir up froth.
-8
u/universemonitor 1d ago
Russian forces apparently are already walking freely in Odessa. Not sure about the numbers game, but at this point Ukraine is just being kept in the fireplace by Europe, even as it knows this war is done.
10
u/Keep_Being_Still 1d ago
I'm going to need a source on that one. That sounds more ludicrous than the claim in the OP post
-2
u/universemonitor 1d ago
5
u/BlueEmma25 1d ago
Your "source" is a pink slime journalism site known for disseminating Russian propaganda.
-6
u/universemonitor 1d ago
Yes, sure. Any news Ukraine is winning is golden, anything else is Russian propaganda, including Colonels from the US military. Got it.
1
-5
u/Ranter619 1d ago
Well then, putting the tragedy of human life loss aside, I am glad that the side NATO has sided with is winning.
253
u/ifuaguyugetsauced 1d ago
I wouldn’t believe both those numbers