Certain trends on the Ukrainian battle field can be seen in the daily reports the Russian military puts outs.
When the Ukrainian president Zelensky visited Washington he was criticized for his failing military strategy:
Ukraine will retake the fiercely contested eastern city of Bakhmut from Russia by the end of the year, President Volodymyr Zelensky predicted during his visit to Washington, an assertion that shows the gulf between Kyiv and American war planners who believe that Ukraine should be focusing more on the south.
…
U.S. intelligence and military officials have long questioned why Ukraine has fought so hard in Bakhmut, the scene of one of the bloodiest battles of the war. In March, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III said the city was “more of a symbolic value than it is strategic and operational value.”But Mr. Zelensky has been intent on trying to retake lost territory, and Ukraine has committed large numbers of troops and weapons to retaking Bakhmut and defending the surrounding Donbas region.
Some American officials say the fight in Bakhmut has become something of an obsession for Mr. Zelensky and his military leaders. The Ukrainians’ relentless focus on the city led them to believe that a possible victory was just around the corner, long after American officials had counseled them to move on to other targets because victory for either side would be pyrrhic.
I somewhat agree with U.S. officials on Bakhmut. It no longer has any strategic value for the Ukraine and its army is losing many soldiers and equipment in its continuing attacks there. In fact it is currently losing many more around Bakhmut than it is losing in its southern attack towards the Sea of Azov.
Today's report by the Russian Ministry of Defense lists 445 Ukrainian casualties in the Donetzk direction, mostly around Bakhmut, and only 100 casualties on the Zaporozhye front in the south. Yesterday's report had 305 versus 35. Last week's summary listed 1,455 Ukrainian troops killed and wounded around Bakhmut and 515 in the southern direction. There was no discernible progress in either direction.
Another trend noticeable in the daily reports is an increasing Ukrainian lack of armored vehicles.
A month ago the reported destruction of armored vehicles (including tanks) and unarmored trucks and pick-ups was still somewhat equal with, depending on the intensity of fighting, some 10-20 of both being destroyed per day. This has been the case since early March. My spreadsheet derived from the daily reports since March 2 sums up a total of 3,663 armored versus 3,600 unarmored vehicles as Ukrainian losses.
Over the last weeks that ratio has changed. Today the report says 12 armored versus 20 unarmored rides. Yesterday the ratio was 7 to 19. Last week's summary lists 84 armored versus 145 unarmored vehicles. Over the last 30 days the numbers are 419 armored versus 632 unarmored.
The ratio has not changed due to tactics. The first counter-offensive movements with high concentrations of tanks have failed. But those were only a few days with high armor losses. Ukraine has since emphasized infantry attacks. But the soldiers must still be transported towards their frontline positions. It is what armored vehicles, also called battle taxis, are used for as the frontline is usually under strong artillery fire. But it now seems that trucks and pick-ups are also used for this. They do not have a chance to survive under fire.
The lack of armor is likely caused by Russian kamikaze drones who are hunting down any single ride they can find. Replenishment from the West, which is running out of reserve vehicles, is no longer enough to replace what the Ukrainian army is losing on the battlefield.
Another trend can be seen in the type of Ukrainian artillery that the daily reports claim as destroyed. The Soviet era 152mm howitzer D-20 and MSTA-B as well as the self propelled 152mm Akatzíya are becoming less mentioned. There are now higher losses of 122mm D-30 and the self propelled 122mm 2S1 Gvodzdika. The bigger guns could reach further. Their diminishing numbers have been replaced by western derived 155 mm guns like the British made M-777 howitzer and various types of western self propelled 155mm howitzers like the Polish Krab systems. The daily reports show increasing losses of those. Losses of Soviet era Multi Launch Rocket Systems like the truck mounted Grad system have become a rarity on the Ukrainian side.
The observable change in destroyed guns likely reflects the availability of ammunition, or rather the lack of it. In February the New York Times reported that the production of 122mm ammunition in Bulgaria has been increased:
The factory stopped making the 122-millimeter shells in 1988 as the Cold War came to a close. But soon the assembly lines will be running again. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has turned Soviet-era arms and ammunition into critically important matériel as Western nations seek to supply Ukraine with the munitions it needs to foil Moscow’s assault.
And so in January, 35 years after the last 122-millimeter shells left the Terem plant, the company recommissioned production.
I have seen no such reports for a 152 mm production line. Nor can I find any report about the production of Grad missiles. The systems which use those no longer appear on the battlefield as they have become useless.
While probably not exact in their numbers the daily reports by the Russian Ministry of Defense do show certain trends on the battle field that reflect the economic and logistic realities of the war quite well.
The overall high number of Ukrainian human losses in these reports, especially in the Bakhmut direction, have been confirmed by reports from the Ukrainian side. Videos also show that the Ukrainian side is using fewer armored vehicles and more trucks or even civilian vehicles. The losses of artillery pieces reflect the reported availability of certain types of ammunition.
Following the daily Russian reports is quite useful. I wonder why western media are not doing it.