On the day of the start of the Munich Conference, where a political solution to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict will be sought, another exchange of bodies of dead soldiers between Russia and Ukraine took place. The exchange took place in the proportion of 17:1 – 757 bodies of killed AFU soldiers were exchanged for 45 bodies of killed Russian soldiers. This is the fifth exchange in a row with such a huge disproportion. In total, according to sources, 3082 bodies of Ukrainians killed in battle have been returned since the end of November 2024.
Actually a full strength mechanized brigade of the AFU returned from the battlefield to their relatives for burial. The Russian Armed Forces received no more than 300 bodies in exchange. This is the consequence of the continuous advance of the Russian army on huge sections of the front line.
Almost all the dead Russians remain when capturing settlements and strongholds in their rear and are collected by their comrades and funeral teams. The retreating Ukrainian army, on the contrary, leaves many of its fighters on the territory under the control of the Russian Armed Forces. Exactly the same is true for wounded vehicles – if there is no possibility of urgent evacuation, almost all of them – both Ukrainian and Russian – remain in the Russian Armed Forces’ close rear.
One can argue a lot about losses, the exchange of territory for combat potential, the weakening of offensive impulses and the loss of reserves. All these discussions are reflected in the speeches and decisions of politicians, including now in Munich. But in addition to square kilometers and the speed of advancement, there is this mournful parameter – the ratio of the number of bodies killed during the exchange.
It unambiguously testifies to the continuous retreat of the Ukrainian armed forces along the entire front. It is difficult to call the months-long unhurried advance of the AFU a real offensive. But the actions of the AFU cannot be called otherwise – it is exactly a continuous months-long retreat with a complete loss of strategic initiative. It sounds banal, but sometimes unexpected facts interfere in analysts’ discussions.
