What impact did Western and non‑Western replenishment (production, imports) have on Russia’s equipment-attrition sustainability in 2024?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Russia entered 2024 able to replace a large portion of battlefield losses through a mix of domestic production and stocks, and Western reporting through 2024 found that replenishments roughly kept pace with attrition for at least the short term (Russia could “sustain” current loss rates for “two to three more years”) [1] [2]. By late 2024–early 2025 analysts converged that while Russia could keep offensive operations going for another year, doing so would impose very high equipment and personnel costs and face growing industrial and material limits from sanctions and stretched stocks [3] [4].
1. Western replenishment: limited direct effect on Russian industry but decisive for Ukrainian resilience
Western military assistance to Ukraine did not directly resupply Russian forces, but it reshaped the attrition contest: analysts noted that Russian forces continued to absorb and replace losses faster than many expected in 2024, in part because Western aid did not erase Russia’s numerical advantages in armour and artillery, allowing Moscow to keep pressure on Ukrainian lines despite staggering losses [5] [6]. Independent assessments from IISS and other analysts observed that Russian equipment replenishments in 2023–24 often “roughly kept pace with battlefield attrition,” implying Western supplies to Ukraine were not sufficient on their own to force a rapid Russian collapse of materiel in 2024 [1] [2].
2. Domestic production and non‑Western imports: the backbone of Russian replenishment
Most of Russia’s immediate replenishment in 2024 came from its industrial base, Soviet‑era stocks and imports or technical cooperation with non‑Western partners rather than Western sources; multiple analyses emphasize that reconstitution depended on production capacity, stockpiles and “making do” with older systems pulled from storage [7] [6]. Russia’s military‑industrial complex, bolstered by pre‑2014 resilience planning and post‑2022 adaptation, sustained high output for tanks, IFVs and artillery rounds in 2023–24, although analysts warn that growth beyond 2024 levels would require new factories or risky tradeoffs such as halting exports [8] [7].
3. Quality, reserves and the erosion of easy options
Quantitative replenishment masked qualitative limits: the IISS and other observers warned that a large portion of stored equipment is likely degraded and that cannibalisation of stocks and accelerated refurbishment have costs that compound over time [2] [4]. Projections published in late 2024 and 2025 showed production-rate improvements in 2023–24 but slowing growth by 2025 as “quick fixes” exhausted and sanctions made components scarcer, leading some outlets to conclude Russia could face alarming shortages by 2025 if attrition continued [9] [4].
4. Trajectory and sustainability: what the evidence implies for 2024 and beyond
Multiple think‑tank and intelligence appraisals converged on a conditional conclusion: in 2024 Russia could sustain offensive operations because production plus stocks and personnel replacements broadly kept frontline units supplied, but sustaining that into the medium term would be costly and increasingly fragile—future replenishment depended on industrial expansion, relaxed exports or a reallocation of civilian capacity, all politically and economically difficult under sanctions [3] [7] [6]. Chatham House and others noted that Ground Forces had absorbed the heaviest losses and that regeneration will be heavily shaped by how the war evolves, undercutting long‑term sustainability if attrition stays high [10].
5. Battlefield consequences and policy levers
The practical battlefield effect in 2024 was a grinding equilibrium: Russia’s ability to keep feeding armour, artillery and rockets into the fight limited Ukraine’s ability to translate tactical successes into strategic breakthroughs, while Western aid improved Ukrainian resilience but did not eliminate Russia’s capacity to replenish in the short term [6] [5]. This leaves policy levers clear in the reporting: sustained Western ammunition and weapons flows, concerted sanctions targeting key inputs and coordinated pressure to degrade Russian production capacity matter most to turn short‑term Russian reconstitution into long‑term unsustainability [2] [11].
Conclusion: reporting through 2024–early 2025 shows Western supplies strengthened Ukrainian resilience but did not directly stop Russian replenishment; Russia’s domestic production plus stocks and non‑Western adjustments were the primary drivers of its 2024 sustainability, yet analysts consistently flag that those sources are finite, degrading in quality and increasingly stressed by sanctions—meaning 2024’s apparent endurance came with mounting, visible limits for 2025 and beyond [1] [7] [4].