Morale Matters

Moscow's Math Models

Today, I’ve Victory Day on my mind. It’s celebrated today, May 8th, in most of Europe, and it will be marked tomorrow on the 9th in Russia, with a very big parade. Victory Day is that day a country celebrates victory over a foe, and for most of the world, that day marks the end of World War II.

I’ve been eager to write a post about morale for a while, and it is fitting to do it on this Victory Day, and to highlight Moscow, and the Russians themselves.

“… nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery, or military brilliance … we did more than any other country, by far, in producing a victorious result in World War II” - President Donald Trump, Truth Social, 5/1/2025

His statement is unfortunate - - preposterous in fact.

RUSSIANS, AND CHINESE, PAID A DEAR PRICE TO WIN WORLD WAR 2

Russian President Putin is proud to host dozens of world leaders in Moscow tommorow, chief amoung them is China's Xi Jinping.

You’ll note that of the 75 million people who lost their lives in World War Two, one third of those were Soviet. The Chinese lost a similar amount: Together, the two countries lost 75% of lives lost by the Allies in total. American deaths pale in comparison, 400,000 or 0.5% of the total.

FOR EVERY AMERICAN DEATH, RUSSIA LOST SIXTY & CHINA FIFTY

Too much of what we Americans think about this war, World War 2, is built on fiction, the most damaging of which is probably the way we saw it portrayed in the movies. Perhaps Hollywood, with its special effects and bright, Klieg lights, accounts for Trump’s blindness.

This blindness, this ignorance of who fought the war, who won the war, and how, is dangerous. It’s hubris. Individuals get their noses bloodied when they overestimate their abilities. Political leaders get their soldiers and their civilians killed.

FOR EVERY AXIS DEATH - - RUSSIANS AND CHINESE LOST FOUR

Axis deaths, those of Germany, Japan, and Italy, amounted to 15 million deaths, 20% of the war’s total. Thus, the victorious Allied countries lost four people for every one lost by the defeated Axis. Got that? Winning cost us four times as much as the losers’ losing.

This is a type of warfare the Russians know well, attrition warfare. Attrition warfare is a strategy. The strategy aims to wear down an enemy through continuous losses in personnel, equipment, and resources. This is in contrast to the “shock and awe” strategy of which we Americans are so proud.

WE IN THE WEST HAVE LITTLE UNDERSTANDING OF ATTRITION WARFARE - - BOTH IN THE WARS OF THE PAST AND THE PRESENT

You might have seen this infographic before, considered “the Best Statistical Graphic Ever Drawn”. On the left, in light orange, the map shows the 680,000 troop strength of Napoleon’s march [to the right] into Russia in 1812. French engineer Charles Joseph Minard drew this in 1869, to illustrate the disaster: In black is the size of the retreating force, ever-shrinking as thousands of Napoleon’s soldiers died of disease, cold, starvation and Russian attacks.

THOSE WHO STUDY ATTRITION WARFARE KEENLY STUDY MORALE

This was brought to my attention by blogger Andrei Martyanov. An expert on Russian military and naval issues, he was born in the USSR, is a graduate of the Kirov Naval Red Banner Academy, and was an officer of Soviet Coast Guard. Martyanov has written a number of books, including "Losing Military Supremacy, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs" and "Disintegration: Indicators of the Coming American Collapse".

Andrei, of course, speaks and reads Russian. I do not. It is very difficult for us in the West to get access to, let alone understand, the volume and the depth of Russian military planning. Andrei argues in much of his work that the Russian military training, particularly of its officers and general staff is more rigourous and STEM-driven. Thus, the level and detail of operational planning exceeds that of Western counterparts.

M. Osipov, a Russian WWI military theorist, wrote, “victory does not depend on the duration of the battle but mainly on the losses suffered by the parties; therefore, it would be more correct to assume that the battle lasts until the losses of one party reach a certain percent.”

From what I can determine, the writings of Osipov are not available in English, nor are they studied by Western strategists. The same is true of Alexander Svechin, Osipov’s more famous contemporary.

This is formulized in Russian strategic planning and in tactical decision-making. When planning for the allocation of resources to any given conflict, the Russians have a formula I’ll write as “B = a × p”. The “B” is the probablity of success. This is calculated by multiplying a “moral” superiority factor, “a”, times - - a more complex calculation of - - “p”, the level of technological superiority.

Importantly, the “moral” factor, “a”, is a ratio of the level of losses of troops each side can bear and still function. That level, that “Alpha”, is not the same for each side - - morale matters!

Does NATO want to find out what kind of Alpha will it have when fighting Russian Army defending her Motherland? I can tell you - - it will not be good. - A. Martyanov, 5/7/2025

ARMIES, AND PEOPLES, BORN OF CONFLICTS OF ATTRITION ARE A DIFFERENT BREED, SO IS THEIR MILITARY SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

We would be wise to be well aware of this.

“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” - Friedrich Nietzsche