The battle for Avdiivka is one of the most explicit demonstrations of how the war has evolved into a grinding war of attrition—driven as much by logistics and stamina as by firepower. After months of stalemate, Russian commanders began a massive counterattack against the city, seeking to surround Ukrainian forces and shift momentum in the east. Their plan relied on numbers, pouring wave after wave of inadequately prepared troops into combat. Western officials characterized the strategy as “human wave” attacks, with Moscow not caring much about losses.
Those casualties were overwhelming. Ukrainian officers asserted that almost 47,000 Russian troops were killed or injured in the campaign, including as many as 17,000 dead. Although at a price, Russian forces finally captured Avdiivka. But the claimed victory was so costly that few were sure it had been worth it. Britain’s defense ministry approximated that Russia lost over 400 tanks in the fight, more than the pre-war population of the town. To maintain the offensive, Moscow was forced to redeploy troops from other fronts, demonstrating its willingness to grasp even at any cost.
For the Ukrainians as well, the scene was similarly nuanced. Shortages of ammunition and Western aid tardiness left defenders thinned out, and their defensive positions far less impressive than anticipated. Satellite photos revealed that the trenches to the west of Avdiivka were shallow and ad hoc, in contrast to the deep, layered defenses Russia had constructed in the south using tank traps and dragon’s teeth. American officials quietly conceded privately that they had worried Ukraine hadn’t spent as much on fixed defenses early on—a shortsightedness that became obvious once the Russian advance broke through.
The comparison with Russian engineering was savage. Close to sites such as Verbove, Russia’s defenses were nearly impenetrable in Ukraine’s counteroffensive. Close to Avdiivka, Ukrainian lines were thin and more susceptible to penetration. Kyiv later conceded that there were not sufficient resources and the majority of attention had been devoted to offense at the expense of reinforcing positions. Digging in had been regarded as expensive and less of a priority—until too late.
Equipment losses highlighted the brutal math of the war. Ukrainian intelligence estimated that Russia lost over 7,200 tanks and almost 14,000 armored combat vehicles since the start of the invasion. Ukraine lost about 50 combat vehicles in Avdiivka, and Russia nearly 700. That type of disparity cannot be maintained indefinitely. Moscow was employing lightly armored carriers to transport troops at the end, a sign of its depleted reserves.
For Ukraine, Western assistance has continued to be the lifeline. American and European shipments of shells, air defenses, and vehicles have maintained the front, but political delays inflicted serious damage during the Avdiivka battle. Ammunition and interceptor stocks dwindled, and officials in Washington cautioned that additional delays in support risked transmitting far beyond Ukraine itself. In Kyiv, many felt the city’s fall was not due to a lack of will but because vital supplies were tied up in political disputes abroad.
Manpower is heavily reliant on both sides. Russia has relied on prisoners, conscripts, and soldiers from poorer areas to make up its ranks. Ukraine’s soldiers are older, better educated, and more motivated, but many frontline soldiers are now over the age of 40 and tired after months without being rotated. The toll is clear.
Russian morale is also tenuous. Footage has emerged of troops griping about suicidal operations, incompetent commanders, and insufficient arms. The Kremlin’s willingness to incur huge losses in return for modest territorial gains saps confidence, although fear of reprisal keeps most complacent.
Strategically, Avdiivka’s loss opens some doors to further Russian advances, but no one thinks Moscow is strong enough for deep incursions. Its troops are exhausted, and reserves are thin. Ukraine is already drawing up new defenses beyond the city, though in the absence of another wave of Western aid, other fortresses might be vulnerable. European production of arms is gradually rising, but the rate remains glacial. U.S. weapons are available to ship, but politics continues to hold up deliveries.
Fundamentally, the war is now a test of endurance. Russia has demonstrated it can endure appalling losses and continue to battle on, while Ukraine depends on the constant supply of Western weapons and the toughness of its soldiers.
The fight for Avdiivka bore out this reality in stark relief: astronomical costs, modest returns, and results determined as much by political will as by combat action. Russia might have taken the city, but the cost it incurred guarantees that the triumph will be empty.