The battle for Avdiivka is probably one of the most vivid instances that show the war has changed to be a matter of attrition, logistics, and morale at least as much as it has been of the use of tanks and guns. After a few months of stalemate, the Russian leaders made up their minds to force a breakthrough in the city, trying to flank and alter the situation in the region. Their concept was based on nothing but numbers – they did several times the number of troops that were scarcely trained and equipped, and most of the witnesses referred to those offensives as “human wave” attacks. As U.S. officials at that time reminded, Russia was prepared to continue deploying vast numbers of inadequately trained troops directly into the frontline and was not concerned about the casualties.
Those casualties were overwhelming. Ukrainian commanders put the number of Russian soldiers killed or wounded at almost 47,000, with up to 17,000 dead. Nevertheless, the city was eventually captured by Russia. The win came at such a price that a lot of people have doubted its worth. Britain’s defense ministry estimated Russian tank losses at over 400 in the fighting, well above the population of Avdiivka before the war. The analysts said that Moscow had to take units from other fronts just to keep the offensive going, an indicator of the Kremlin’s determination to hold ground no matter what the cost.
Ukraine’s version of events was no less complex. Avdiivka’s defense was impeded by ammunition shortages, diminishing Western aid, and—most unexpectedly—poor fortifications. Satellite imagery indicated that the trench lines to the west of the city were shallow and rudimentary, nothing at all like the multiple-layered defenses Russia had established in the south, complete with tank traps, dragon’s teeth, and interlocking trench systems. American officials in private admitted concern that Ukraine had not spent enough on defensive positions in the early going, a shortage painfully clear after the Russian attack broke through.
The difference with Russian engineering was stark. Close to villages such as Verbove, Russia’s defenses were virtually impregnable in Ukraine’s counteroffensive. Along Avdiivka, Ukrainian lines were exposed and underprepared by comparison. Kyiv officials acknowledged resources were thin and much of the attention had been given to offensive action and not digging in. Establishing solid defenses was regarded as costly and less immediate—until it came too late.
The equipment losses highlighted the war’s ugly math. The Ukrainian intelligence stated that Russia has lost more than 7,200 tanks and nearly 14,000 armored personnel carriers since the invasion began. In Avdiivka alone, Ukraine lost some 50 combat vehicles, but Russia lost nearly 700. That kind of ratio cannot be maintained indefinitely. Moscow turned to deploying lightly armored vehicles to transport troops, a last-ditch improvisation that says much about the strain on its inventory.
Western aid has been the key to Ukraine’s capacity to continue the combat. American and European deliveries of ammunition and air defenses have maintained their front lines, but setbacks in new appropriations took a heavy toll during fighting. Shells and interceptors dwindled, and American officials openly threatened that not keeping the support could have implications far outside of Ukraine. Most in Kyiv felt that the loss of Avdiivka was not because of low fighting spirit, but because important supplies were trapped in a political deadlock.
Manpower is also an issue. Russia has relied on minorities, convicts, and conscripts from poorer areas to make up its numbers. Ukraine’s troops, on the other hand, tend to be older, better educated, and more motivated, but the average age on the front lines has now risen over 40. Hundreds of days have passed since many of them have had a break from combat, and the toll is obvious.
There is discontent among Russian troops as well. Footage has been leaked of troops griping about suicidal missions, inadequate leadership, and substandard equipment. The Kremlin’s ability and willingness to accept enormous casualties in pursuit of incremental advances further undermined morale, even if threats of punishment keep most compliant.
Tactically, Avdiivka’s capture does create new avenues for Russian advances, but no one imagines that Moscow can drive much further. Its soldiers are weary, and reserves are thin. Ukraine, meanwhile, is digging fresh defensive lines outside the city, but short of a surge in Western aid, additional city strongholds might be in jeopardy. European factories are ramping up production of ammunition, but the pace of acceleration has been glacial. The U.S. has already prepared weapons to be shipped, but politics have held them back from reaching the front lines.
Fundamentally, the war has become less a matter of maneuver and more one of endurance. Russia has taken awful losses in men and equipment, yet it retains reserves and the ability to continue at this rate for years. Ukraine, by contrast, must depend on the stream of Western supplies and the will of its soldiers to remain in the contest.
The Battle of Avdiivka encapsulates the spirit of this war: high cost, modest returns, and results determined as much by political choice as by fighting. It was a Russian victory in name only—a battle which can be expected to end up costing more than the territory it gained.
More images you may be interested in:
