A Thousand Casualties Daily: The Toll of the Russia-Ukraine War and the Global Strategic Shift Behind NATO Secretary-General’s Data

On the stage of the World Economic Forum in Davos, the voice of NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg was calm and clear, but the figures he presented were enough to send a chill through any audience. On January 21, 2025, addressing the global political and business elite, he announced: Yes, it is a fact that in December of last year, the Russians were losing 1,000 people per day—not seriously injured, but killed. That amounts to over 30,000 people in a month. He then added a comparison with even greater historical impact: during the 1980s in Afghanistan, the Soviet army lost 20,000 people over 10 years. Now they are losing 30,000 people in just one month.

These numbers quickly made global headlines. However, focusing solely on the muddy trenches and shattered cities in eastern Ukraine is one-sided. Around the same time Stoltenberg made these remarks, thousands of kilometers away in the Arctic Circle, another silent yet equally intense contest was unfolding beneath the ice fields and deep seas. A CNN analysis pointed out that while former President Trump showed keen interest in Greenland, Russia has already established a dominant presence in the Arctic region. From the Ukrainian plains to the Arctic ice cap, from daily casualty reports to decades-long geopolitical strategies, a series of events outline a more complex, interconnected global picture: a high-intensity local hot war is deeply intertwined with a new round of strategic competition under a multipolar world order.

The Shock of Numbers and the Harsh Reality of War

The impact of the data disclosed by Stoltenberg in Davos first stems from its scale and intensity. A daily toll of one thousand fatalities means that in the past December alone, Russian military monthly casualties exceeded thirty thousand. This rate not only dwarfs the annual casualty figures of the Soviet-Afghan War but also reaches a level rarely seen in modern warfare. The cumulative data released by the Ukrainian General Staff—approximately 1.229 million total Russian military losses since the full-scale invasion—though varying in statistical methodologies across sources, largely confirms the staggering extent of the conflict's attrition.

These numbers are not abstract statistics; they correspond to the brutal attritional warfare pattern on the front lines. Since the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the summer of 2023 failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, the conflict has gradually evolved into a brutal war of attrition centered around artillery, drones, and trench systems. The Russian military shifted from its earlier tactics of deep penetration and maneuver, instead relying on its vast manpower reserves and relatively superior artillery firepower to launch wave after wave of infantry assaults in areas like Donetsk and Luhansk. The aim is to wear down Ukrainian defensive lines and morale through sustained pressure and attrition. The battles in and around Avdiivka, Marinka, and Bakhmut are typical manifestations of this meat-grinder style of warfare. Russian commanders appear willing to accept high infantry casualties in exchange for limited territorial gains, underpinned by the country's large population base and the continuous troop replenishment capability provided by its partial mobilization system.

However, the high casualty rate also reveals the deep-seated challenges faced by the Russian military. Despite having a numerical advantage, it still suffers from shortcomings in tactical coordination, precision strikes, and battlefield intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), often leaving infantry assaults exposed to Ukrainian artillery fire and drone attacks. The extensive use of Western-supplied long-range artillery, HIMARS rocket systems, and first-person view (FPV) drones has enabled Ukrainian forces to inflict significant casualties on advancing Russian infantry units with high efficiency.

Stoltenberg deliberately emphasized the distinction between killed and wounded in his speech, aiming to highlight the irreversibility of losses and the brutal nature of war. Typically, in modern warfare, the wounded-to-killed ratio is higher due to improved medical conditions. However, the unique environment of the Ukrainian battlefield—including large-scale artillery bombardments, precision drone strikes, and harsh winter conditions—may lead to an unusually high proportion of fatalities. He also mentioned the severe cold of minus 20 degrees Celsius in Kyiv and Ukraine's ability to meet only 60% of its own electricity needs. By juxtaposing Russian military casualties with Russia's systematic airstrikes on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, he painted a picture of a full-scale war in which both sides are enduring immense suffering.

Arctic Undercurrents: Another Frontline in the Shadow of War

While global attention is focused on the artillery fire in Eastern Europe, at the other end of the Earth in the Arctic region, a strategic layout measured in decades, centered on resources and shipping routes, is accelerating. CNN's analysis reveals a key fact: the war in Ukraine has not weakened Russia's ambitions and presence in the Arctic; instead, by strengthening Russia-China cooperation, it may have altered the balance of power in the region.

Russia possesses a natural geographical advantage in the Arctic. It controls approximately half of the land area and half of the exclusive economic zones north of the Arctic Circle, with two-thirds of the region's residents living within Russian territory. After the Cold War, the Arctic was once regarded as a model area for East-West cooperation, and the Arctic Council promoted collaboration among the eight Arctic nations, including Russia, in areas such as climate change and ecological protection. However, military and security cooperation was suspended following the 2014 Crimea crisis; after the full-scale outbreak of the Ukraine war in 2022, most forms of cooperation came to a standstill.

The war has given rise to new geopolitical realities. Finland joined NATO in 2023, and Sweden in 2024, which has nearly divided the Arctic region politically into two sides: one being Russia, and the other being the expanded NATO Arctic member states (the United States, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden). This bloc-based confrontation significantly increases the risk of the Arctic shifting from a zone of cooperation to a potential area of competition.

Russia has been investing in Arctic military infrastructure for decades. According to monitoring by Canada's Simons Foundation, there are a total of 66 military bases or major facilities in the Arctic region, with 30 in Russia and 36 in NATO countries. Analysis by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) points out that in recent years, Russia has focused on upgrading its nuclear submarine fleet, which serves as the cornerstone of its underwater combat capabilities in the Arctic, while also enhancing its radar, drone, and missile capabilities. Although its overall military strength still cannot match that of NATO as a whole, its anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) system established in the Arctic region is already formidable.

As a catalyst, climate warming is dramatically enhancing the geopolitical and economic value of the Arctic. The region is warming at four times the global average rate, leading to rapid sea ice melt. Two key shipping routes—the Northern Sea Route along Russia's northern coast and the Northwest Passage along North America's northern coast—are now largely navigable during summer. The Northern Sea Route can reduce shipping time between Asia and Europe to about two weeks, cutting nearly half the time compared to the traditional route via the Suez Canal. Since facing Western sanctions in 2022, Russia has increasingly utilized this route to transport oil and gas resources to China. The number of transits through the Northwest Passage has also increased from single digits annually in the early 2000s to 41 in 2023.

Resource competition has subsequently surfaced. Greenland is assessed as a hotspot potentially rich in coal, copper, gold, rare earth elements, and zinc. This directly relates to the unusual interest shown in Greenland during Trump's tenure, with his former national security advisor explicitly stating that the focus was on critical minerals and natural resources. Although the idea of acquiring Greenland was dismissed by experts as utterly absurd, it reflects that Arctic resources have become part of the strategic calculations of major powers.

What is more noteworthy is the collaboration between Russia and China in the Arctic. In 2018, China declared itself a "near-Arctic state" and proposed the "Polar Silk Road." By 2024, China and Russia had begun conducting joint patrols in the Arctic. This deep cooperation between a non-Arctic state and a dominant Arctic power adds a new layer of complexity to the geopolitical landscape of the Arctic.

Strategic Synergy: Ukrainian Exhaustion and Global Power Rebalancing

On the surface, Ukraine's trench war and the great game in the Arctic occur in different dimensions, but analysis reveals that they are closely interconnected through at least three key mechanisms, collectively shaping the current international security landscape.

First, the war in Ukraine directly consumes and diverts Russia's strategic resources and attention, yet supported by its strategic endurance, Russia has not abandoned its long-term planning in other critical directions. The war has indeed caused significant losses to Russia's conventional military capabilities, particularly in terms of army equipment and well-trained personnel. However, Russia's economy has demonstrated resilience under sanctions; its energy revenues, though impacted, have not been exhausted, and its military-industrial complex has shifted to a wartime footing with substantial production increases. This enables Russia to maintain a dual-track operation: waging a high-intensity war of attrition in Ukraine while continuing military modernization and infrastructure investments in regions of long-term strategic importance, such as the Arctic. Military development in the Arctic, especially regarding nuclear submarines and long-range strike capabilities, relies more on branches like the Navy and Strategic Rocket Forces, which have not been directly involved in large-scale combat in Ukraine, thereby somewhat avoiding resource conflicts.

Secondly, the Ukraine war has strengthened the strategic coordination between Russia and China, which has extended to regions such as the Arctic. Facing comprehensive pressure from the West, Russia's dependence on China has deepened, and the "no limits" partnership between the two sides has seen substantive advancement in the security domain. The joint Sino-Russian Arctic patrol in 2024 serves as clear evidence. For China, cooperating with Russia to enter the Arctic helps ensure the diversification of energy supplies, opens new critical trade routes, and enhances its global strategic presence. For Russia, China's capital, technology, and political support are crucial, particularly in developing the Northern Sea Route and managing the enormous costs of Arctic development. This alliance means the West now faces not just Russia alone in the Arctic, but a strategic collaborative partnership.

Third, the war has stimulated strategic awakening and resource reallocation within NATO and the West as a whole, yet internal contradictions and priority disputes persist. The core of Stoltenberg's speech at Davos was to urge the West to treat Ukraine as the top priority. He sharply pointed out that Europe has no more air defense systems or American-made weapons to provide to Ukraine, and the EU's 90 billion euro aid will not be available until the spring of 2025. This exposes bureaucratic delays and military-industrial capacity bottlenecks in the West's aid process to Ukraine. Meanwhile, long-term strategic challenges such as the Arctic are also competing for resources and attention. Trump's remarks about Greenland, though seemingly abrupt, reflect the anxiety within a segment of the U.S. strategic community regarding Arctic security and the resource competition. The West is attempting to strike a balance between addressing the immediate crisis in Ukraine and planning for long-term global strategic competition (especially against China and Russia), but limited resources and internal political divisions make this process challenging.

Future Vision: Sustained Consumption and Multipolar Competition-Cooperation

Looking ahead, the interconnected landscape from Ukraine to the Arctic indicates that the world is entering an era characterized by protracted attrition and multipolar competition coexisting.

In Ukraine, unless there is a major breakthrough on the battlefield or a political upheaval, the current pattern of attrition warfare is likely to persist. Russia appears prepared to endure long-term losses in personnel and materiel, attempting to wear down the resolve of Ukraine and its Western supporters. Ukraine's survival depends entirely on sustained, stable, and sufficient military and economic assistance from the West. The staggering casualty figures announced by Stoltenberg are, in themselves, a political tool aimed at shocking Western publics and politicians, urging them to accelerate and increase their aid. This war has become a marathon testing Russia's strategic endurance and the resilience of Western unity.

At the Arctic and broader global levels, the trend of bloc formation and the need for cross-bloc cooperation will coexist in contradiction. Although functional cooperation within the framework of the Arctic Council has been hindered, transnational issues such as climate change, navigation safety, search and rescue, and environmental protection inherently require collaboration. However, military trust has been severely damaged, and the security dilemma has intensified. The closer ties between China and Russia, along with NATO's northern expansion, may lead to the formation of a new strategic confrontation line in the Arctic. Meanwhile, most countries in the Global South have not taken sides on the Ukraine issue, focusing more on development, debt, and climate concerns, which provides diplomatic space for Russia and China.

Ultimately, the brutal reality of Ukraine suffering thousands of casualties daily, combined with the strategic maneuvers surging beneath the Arctic ice cap, jointly reveals a core proposition: Great power competition in the 21st century is a contest of comprehensive national strength, a test of strategic endurance, and a complex game played across multiple interconnected fronts. Gains or losses on a single battlefield may not determine the outcome of the overall situation. While Russia endures massive casualties in Ukraine, it continues to cultivate the Arctic, which it views as its strategic backyard; while the West supports Ukraine in resisting aggression, it must also divert attention to cope with the profound realignment of the global power structure. What Stoltenberg voiced in Davos was not only an appeal for urgent aid to Ukraine but also a warning to Western societies to recognize this new, more complex, and more protracted era of competition. The outcome of the war will be determined not only by the gains and losses in the frontline trenches but also by the deployments on these distant ice fields, the restructuring of global supply chains, and the resilience of alliance politics.

Reference materials

https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2026/01/22/8017297/

https://ua.korrespondent.net/ukraine/4849382-shaleni-tsyfry-ruitte-nazvav-vtraty-rf-u-hrudni