The question sounds almost abstract at first, like a numbers game. But it is not. When Russian independent military analyst Ian Matveev recently laid out the Kremlin’s own recruitment figures, the result was unsettling, even for seasoned observers of the war in Ukraine. While Putin and Kremlin propaganda push the narrative that “Russia is winning” in Ukraine, and “Capitulation of Ukraine”, Moscow forgets to mention the cost, the huge losses of the Russian invading forces.
On December 19, 2025, Russian independent journalist and military analyst Ian Matveev published a stark breakdown of Kremlin-announced troop figures since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to Matveev’s interpretation of official numbers:
According to official Russian statements, hundreds of thousands of soldiers have been recruited year after year. Yet the number of troops currently deployed is far lower than the arithmetic suggests. Something does not add up, and that gap has a human face.
This article examines Russian troop losses through the lens of manpower, attrition, and silence. Not the dramatic silence of the battlefield, but the bureaucratic silence that follows when people simply vanish from the numbers.
Matveev’s breakdown relies only on figures publicly acknowledged by the Kremlin. There is no speculation here, no classified leaks, just official arithmetic. Roughly 200,000 soldiers were involved at the start of the full-scale invasion. Later came an official mobilization of around 300,000. Recruitment then continued at pace, with about 350,000 contracts signed in 2023, another 450,000 in 2024, and around 400,000 more claimed in 2025.
Add those numbers together, and the total edges towards, or even past, one million. And yet, by Moscow’s own admission, around 700,000 troops are currently engaged in the war. The missing figure is staggering. Nearly a million soldiers are unaccounted for if contracts are indeed open-ended. Where did they go?
The question lingers. It does not shout. It just sits there, heavy and awkward.
Wars of attrition sound technical, almost tidy, as if people wear down like machinery. The reality is messier. Bodies, minds, lives. Independent open-source analysts have long suggested that Russian casualties—killed, wounded, and missing—have reached extraordinary levels. Some estimates speak of hundreds of thousands. Others go higher. The exact number is elusive, and perhaps that is the point.
Reports from 2025 suggest that Russian forces have continued to suffer severe losses for limited territorial gains. Small villages taken, then lost, then taken again. The front lines barely move, but the human cost keeps climbing. Recruitment continues, almost industrial in scale, while soldiers disappear from the roster just as quickly.
There are other forms of loss too. Desertion, refusal to fight, medical discharge, psychological collapse. These do not always make headlines, yet they quietly drain manpower. A soldier may still be alive but no longer counted.
What makes Matveev’s calculation even more disturbing is what it leaves out. The Kremlin’s figures do not fully include fighters from occupied Ukrainian territories. Nor do they neatly account for private military formations, volunteer units, or mercenary groups that have operated alongside regular forces at different stages of the war.
This creates a strange fog around the real scale of participation. The war feels crowded with men and equipment, yet the official totals never quite reflect what observers see on the ground. It is like counting chairs in a room where people keep slipping out through a side door. You notice eventually. You just do not know when they left.
And then there is the wider impact. Russia’s working-age population has been shrinking for years. Add mass mobilization, sustained casualties, and emigration, and the pressure becomes visible. Shops are short of staff. Regional hospitals stretched thin. Entire towns are missing a generation of young men. These are not statistics; they are absences.
Official messaging from Moscow remains confident. Recruitment targets are met, sometimes exceeded. Patriotism is emphasized. Progress is claimed. Yet independent reporting and battlefield assessments paint a different picture, one of grinding endurance rather than momentum.
This contradiction creates a kind of cognitive dissonance. On paper, the army grows. In reality, it bleeds. The numbers look strong until you ask where last year’s soldiers went. Then the confidence falters, just slightly, but enough.
Matveev’s question cuts through this fog because it is so ordinary. Where are they? It is the same question families ask when letters stop coming, when calls go unanswered, when a contract quietly ends without explanation.
In the end, the missing million is not a mystery in the conventional sense. The answer is painfully obvious, even if it remains officially unspoken. These soldiers are gone because this war consumes people at an extraordinary rate. Faster than recruitment. Faster than propaganda can explain.
This is the real price of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Not just in territory or sanctions, but in human lives quietly erased from the ledger. If you want to understand the conflict, do not look only at the maps. Look at the gaps in the numbers. They tell a story too.
Why are Russian troop numbers so hard to verify?
Because official figures are selective and independent access to battlefield data is extremely limited.
Does recruitment offset Russian battlefield losses?
So far, recruitment appears to replace losses only partially, not sustainably.
Are all casualties deaths?
No, casualties include those killed, wounded, missing, and no longer fit for service.
Why does Ian Matveev’s analysis matter?
It uses the Kremlin’s own data to expose contradictions in official narratives.
Could the real losses be even higher?
Yes, many analysts believe the true figures exceed publicly acknowledged numbers.
European outlets synchronized a three-stage disinformation campaign that turned Russia's military defeat in Kupiansk into…
Across Europe, Russia’s information strategy has evolved from centralized messaging to local translation—re-tailored for national…
Pro-Kremlin networks across Europe weaponize democratic debates to fabricate EU and NATO collapse narratives, transforming…
Pro-Russian media in the EU portray the use of frozen Russian assets for Ukraine loans…
European leaders and prominent EU officials have issued a joint statement welcoming progress in diplomatic…
The European Union has expanded sanctions against Russia in response to escalating hybrid operations and…