48
Russia’s War Recruitment Cash Dries Up as St. Petersburg Slashes Military Bonuses Nearly Ninefold (united24media.com)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/ukraine@lemmy.world
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Russian recruitment bonuses are worth paying attention to. It is a hard signal of what they think they need and where they're going in the mid-term. They can't really hide this number like they can their casualty or production rates. The signup bonus price is an indicator of both the demand from the Russian army and the labour cost from the general population

When it spiked to ludicrous numbers, it signalled commitment to their plan of conquest, and to spend their way out of failure. Seeing the rate drop like this in such a vital place like St. Petersburg shows both budget realities and resignation setting in. $40,000 is life changing money for many russians, and maybe worth dying for, at least for your family. $4,000 is not.

Their entire war strategy at this point is Infantry Inflitration (or Infestation) + Terror Bombing. That'a strategy that moves slowly and chews up men. Russia haven't mobilized post-election like they threatened, and they are ramping down their recruitment bonuses. All that while personnel losses are reaching their highest levels of the entire war.

Those points are all related - their strategy went from artillery and armor to mobile infantry infiltration, which skyrocketed the casualty volume and recruitment costs. It also didn't produce better soldiers. Infantry isn't like appliances where it's better if you pay more. If anything, it's the opposite. The quality of the Average Fighting Man seemed to have fallen as the recruiment costs got more and more expensive. Lots of people were fretting about the tired cliche that 'Russia is bottomless, resistance is pointless'. Those same voices said russia could always at least hold the line in terms of recruiment numbers compared to their losses (which they denied anyways). That barely comes up anymore, and the only thing that's bottomless is their depravity. Maybe it turns out that simply maintaining raw numbers of men in uniform doesn't make for an effective assuault strategy. Quality matters.

In short - this is a good sign that suggests they're winding things down.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's just a guess, really. But lots of examples from history where countries continue to fight and die long after the outcome is more or less understood. The cruelty and hubris of gangster kings, of course, but it also is a way of doing house cleaning.

The problem with bringing your army home is that they start to cause problems when they find economic opportunities in civlian life to not match their skill sets from war. And they have a different interpretation of the "rules" you should follow after their experiences. Bringing home organized, violent men after a war defeat tends to create smouldering conditions for upheaval.

There's a whole other story to write about how this war has been an internal ethnic cleansing project for the russians to trade surplus useless mouths, prisoner and ethnic undesirables for good ukrainian land.

it’s pretty common for ruthless countries who don’t have great humanitarian records to let their soldiers get eliminated even when the likely outcome of the war is pretty well known. More than just the hubris of the leaders trying to avoid accountability for a failed war, it’s a way to liquidate competent opposition for the post-war power struggle and to create scapegoats. It also serves to reduce the number of battle-addled veterans who come home expecting pensions and jobs. Those guys often turn to crime and become a severe domestic nuisance when the state that promised to support them in exchange for turning them into murderers for a lost cause fails to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent