Journalists and volunteers have published detailed data on the scale of Russian military casualties during the war against Ukraine, identifying the identities of over 110,000 fallen soldiers from Russia
This phenomenon becomes particularly noticeable due to significant regional disparities, which reflect the country’s socio-economic and demographic context. It has been found that the highest number of deaths occurs among residents of regions with low levels of prosperity, particularly in Siberian areas such as Tuva, Buryatia, and the Altai Republic. According to investigations conducted jointly by BBC and the Russian publication Meduza, for every 10,000 men in these regions, the number of war-related fatalities reached approximately 120 in Tuva, 91 in Buryatia, and 89 in the Altai Republic. In contrast, in Moscow, this figure was dozens of times lower — only three fatalities per 10,000 men. Demographers state that this discrepancy is significantly influenced by social inequality and economic injustice: in poorer regions, the army often serves not only as a protective structure but also as a primary social lift that temporarily provides an opportunity to earn an income or avoid unemployment. Details from the studies indicate that among those killed in Tuva and Buryatia, a large proportion are volunteers who signed contracts after 2022 or individuals convicted and recruited into private military companies. Specifically, nearly 25% of the fallen in Tuva are either convicted or involved in military formations via contract, regardless of their ethnicity. Another third are career servicemen, over half of whom are volunteers. In Altai, 47% are volunteers who joined the army after the start of the full-scale invasion, while in Buryatia, this share reaches 34%. Additionally, every fifth fallen soldier in the region was mobilized, which is twice the national average. Simultaneously, the situation in Moscow appears different — most of the deceased there are career military personnel or volunteers. Among those who died in the capital, 10% are convicted individuals, 26% are volunteers, and 15% are mobilized. At the same time, in regions with high poverty levels and low social standards, military service is perceived as a chance to break out of poverty or find one’s place in difficult circumstances. At the same time, scientists warn that the actual number of victims significantly exceeds official figures, as most bodies remain on the battlefield due to the danger posed by drones and constant shelling. Estimates, based on obituary analysis, family reports, archival photographs, and local media, suggest that the number of Russian casualties could range from 170,000 to over 240,000. Adding the losses of pro-Russian separatists from the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, estimated at 21,000–23,000, the total number of casualties on the pro-Russian front could reach between 191,000 and 269,000. At the same time, researchers emphasize that these estimates are based on open sources — reports from regional leaders, local administrations, media, as well as family testimonies and funeral photos. Official data are incomplete, and the true losses, according to various estimates, may be much higher. This is confirmed by the fact that some bodies remain on the battlefield, complicating their identification and documentation. The social and geographical distribution of losses is particularly important: regions in the most difficult conditions, including subsidized territories, show the highest combat losses, whereas central Russia, with higher income levels, reports significantly fewer casualties. Scientists and analysts underline that the key factor here is not ethnic affiliation, but the socio-economic situation of the regions. The conscious policy of the government regarding the mobilization of national minorities does not play a decisive role in determining the number of dead, demographers emphasize. In regions with multiethnic populations, such as Tatarstan, Dagestan, or Bashkortostan, the level of losses remains two to three times lower than in less developed regions with low living standards. This repeatedly demonstrates that the prevalence of war and its victims are primarily determined by social factors rather than ethnic characteristics. Overall, reports on casualties reveal a deep crisis within Russia’s social structure, where the war has become a catalyst for the undermining of traditional institutions and a threat to sustainable development. Casualties identified through open sources provide insights into the extent of destruction affecting the country’s most backward and impoverished regions. According to independent research, the real number of victims may be nearly one-third or even half of the official figures, indicating a significant undercount in official military loss statistics.