Reading how complicated doing withdrawals are makes me nervous that the Ukrainians will be able to pull it off but then I reflect that it's you can almost count on the Russians not being able to competently take advantage of opportunities that may come their way....I'd give a lot to know how well the Ukrainians have done in relative casualities. One wonders how many offensives like Bakhmut the Rusians can perform without starting a serious anti-war movement in their country. For every dead Russian there must be two or more seriously wounded ones who will come home full of talk about how glorious Putin's imperial wars really are.
Its reported that seven Russians died for every Ukrainian and we’ve seen the estimate of Russians 10,000 killed in Bakhmut. So, perhaps 1400 Ukrainian deaths? With the Russians, I have the strong suspicion that the casualty ratios we are accustomed to in the west do not apply. From the footage I have watched, battle first aid/buddy support is ignored. Few wounded would survive in that sort of environment. Not many left to tell the tale and the psychopaths in power aren’t listening...
I've heard a lot of commentors report that Russian care for the wounded is poor so I expect a higher death to injured ratio. I've heard about the 1 to 7 ratio and it sounds to 'good' to be true. I can't imagine anyone gets the chance to do careful counting of the casualtie of either side. That said with the Russians attacking and their apparent indifference to casualties and the welfare of the troops I recon the body count would be lop sided. Given Bakhmut has no strategic value perhaps the sign the Ukrainians have held it so long suggests they think the killing ratio is OK by them and their own casualties are not severe. I hope so!
I find it suspicious but not implausible. Horrible care for the wounded (especially in the so called golden hour) may well mean that the number of dead is at least double what it could be with better care. And their tactics (especially Wagner's) ensure that the ratio is lopsided to begin with. It is not unheard of for attacker to suffer incomparably higher casualties than the defenders. Even among the best armies in the world - e.g. in the battle of New Orleans (what's even more astounding is that Andrew Jackson had only a handful of regular soldiers and the rest of his force consisted of militias of various quality, many of whom did not even understand English).
Let’s hope the Russians are not just incompetent when it comes to applying pressure on the withdrawing force (they have shown no such capability to date) and are just flat tired and willing to take anything that looks like a victory, albeit pyrrhic. It is hard to imagine an anti-war movement in Putin’s Russia...any such movement would have to go beyond that to a direct challenge to Putin’s rule.
The Russian military has always been incompetent. It is a product of dysfunctional society. Remember Severodonetsk last summer (just a little to the north from Bakhmut)? It was a salient, but instead of encircling it, the Russians conducted a long series of frontal assaults, and then Russian milbloggers complained that the Ukrainians just got into trucks and drove off.
Long may it continue!...and in so far as the military reflects the society it's a pretty fair bet it will. It occurs to me that Russian military incompetence (up and down the line) is Ukraine's secret and unfailing advantage.
Just think of their use of their state of the art chemical weapon Novichok. They failed to kill either their former intelligent officer Skripal in Salisbury or the opposition leader Navalny in Russia. In both cases the identities of assassins were quickly established, and in the latter case Navalny himself called one of them, impersonated his boss and extracted some details from him. In the former case it was in fact the Russian military - both assassins were colonels in the main intelligence directorate of the Russian General Staff (and they are supposed to be much better than an average Russian colonel). Later some other officers from the same directorate went to Amsterdam on an intelligence mission. They took a taxi from their HQ in Moscow to the airport, and in order to file for expense reimbursement later, they got a receipt from the driver. The receipt showed the address where they were picked up - which for over half a century has been known as the address of the Soviet military intelligence HQ. That's the document those geniuses brought with them on a clandestine foreign mission. I don't know whether they were also wearing their uniforms.
Good analysis, then what follows a withdrawal? Russia then wins a ruined small city and can then continue using or tying up resources to make incremental geographical gains; along the lines of Blackadders' 1:1 scale battlefield map and one inch gain....
One would also assume that Ukraine is also sizing up tactical weak points further south due to Russian resources being used and expended around Bakhmut?
It will not only be a matter of Ukraine withdrawing with as few casualties as possible and in an orderly fashion. It will also require a narrative by the Ukrainian president and military commanders to explain this withdrawal with the previous most senseless losses. It is like always; soldiers fight as long as they have confidence in the leadership and their commanders.
As the piece notes, the battle for Bakhmut has diverted Russian resources to such an extent that it has meant there has been less fighting elsewhere, it has tired and seriously depleted Russian forces, and it has allowed Ukraine to husband its resources in preparation for its upcoming offensive, which will almost certainly be far more effective than the Russian. All in all, an important, and a positive strategic event for Ukraine. That will be well-understood by Ukrainian forces. I don't think there is any likelihood of loss of confidence 'in the leadership or commanders'.
Not any more senseless than any other loss due to Russia’s invasion and attack of Ukraine. If UA doesn’t stand and fight over any insignificant city, you do understand that following that logic, Russia would soon be at Kyiv, yes? It’s not like, after capturing Bakhmut, Russia would just call it a day and go home.
And Russia has expended its remaining elite units in this offensive as well.
I kind of agree with this, but I really hope Ukraine doesn't stick with Bakhmut for symbolic or political reasons. Yes, if they withdrawal, the Kremlin trolls on twitter will have a field day. Some western media sources will be doom-and-gloom, and this is a bit damaging. But not as damaging as losing actual soldiers. The reason to stay there should be that Russia has been and is losing a lot of resources bashing its head into Bakhmut for the past 8 months. Once Ukraine gives up Bakhmut, the Russian offensive could "culminate" like after Seiveirodonetsk.
The reason Ukraine should give up Bakhmut in my eyes are:
(1) Russia is most likely making a mistake going after Bakhmut. They might be encouraged by success to keep attacking.
(2) The worst thing for Ukraine would be for Gerasimov/Shoigu to be fired and a return to Surovikin/Prigozhin. It seems Gerasimov was brought back to attack, prematurely, and Surovikin wisely counceled to defend. Or at least, that's my perception.
(3) Ukraine could leverage the doom and gloom in western media for more arms.
This article seems imo to be a regurgitation of the disengagement doctrine that the author has been exposed to in his army career. I found the construct banal with little nuance. How well did this go for the US In disengaging with the enemy in Afghanistan? We get to the last para, or so, to discuss the effect of Russia capturing the devastated area. “What use could it be he postulates”. Here’s an idea, how about a powerful slap in the face to the West’s proxy war against Russia? Which, again, has us all imo, sleep walking to catastrophe. Yes, I get it, what should we do except support Ukraine. What a shame US Foreign policy dimwits have led us here. It’s going to get a lot worse from here.
FYI- I would have subscribed re; your knowledge and acumen re; the conflict, however , its clear you have a dog in the fight, theres enough partisan sites out there......
Interesting. The big question for me is how many losses each side has taken. A friend of mine met a Russian soldier on a train in Krasnodar who'd been in Bakhmut (he went for the money), and who got shot in the teeth, and luckily survived. This was last July! Nearly 8 months ago. I tend to think Russian losses in Bakhmut were probably huge. While most of them might have been pulled out of jail, it seems word got out in the jails and damaged subsequent recruiting. If convicts in jail are becoming scared to go to Ukraine, this could make subsequent mobilizations a bit harder as well.
That said, we don't really know. It might also be that the Russians are inflicting huge losses on the Ukrainians as well, and maybe the ratio is only 2:1 for Russian casualties to Ukrainian, and given Russia's roughly 3:1 population advantage, that is a win for Russia. I am skeptical though. Even if that's the case, it seems likely the number of trained Russian soldiers in Ukraine is probably less than the number of trained Ukrainian soldiers, and Russia's population advantage is only an advantage on paper, and won't help them in a late spring Ukrainian offensive unless they mobilized yesterday.
I really hope Ukraine manages to do this safely. One thing I don't understand (civilian here) is, given how bad tactics Russia employed, why wasn't it possible to prevent the encirclement? In the sense of, why couldn't enough firepower (arty/drones/etc.) be employed to prevent anything but frontal assaults?
Russia are desperate for a win. So give them one, but on the grounds and conditions of your choosing so that you can shape the battlespace for your next move. But don't make it easy for them either. If a tactical withdrawal is required, then do it.
Ukraine have been brilliant at deception so far. They were telegraphing a massive offensive in the south to retake Kherson - however, as soon as Russia deployed to meet them, they pivoted their focus to the north and swept through the Kharkiv region. Russia are still conducting warfare like it's a scene from Braveheart or some American Civil War movie - the opposing armies meet on a battlefield and slug it out at a pre-agreed venue, with the victor taking the spoils.
They have drawn in so many Russian resources to retaking Bakhmut - remember - not just the pointy end, but logistics, planning/command and intelligence resources, all concentrating on a victory, any victory. And if they take Bakhmut, what opportunities does it open up? The next line of defence will be even harder to overcome. Meanwhile - Ukrainian intelligence should building up a picture of where Russian resources have been drawn down to supplement the Bakhmut effort, the locations where it will be hardest for Russia to pivot back to .
Ukraine will outthink, out-heart, and outlast the Russki’s. They just need to receive the necessary support, know that they are the heart of the free world, and be on something close to a level field of fight. Their mettle was proven in a highly disadvantageous and sustained early effort. They come back strong each time, innovate, and seem to maintain morale--but this can’t last forever if they are just sitting ducks for missiles & can’t compete. The atrocities and inhumane treatment of civilians and children proved the Russian’s mettle, albeit they are highly skilled at disinformation, propaganda, and infiltration. Few can manage a relentless campaign, but Zelensky is a steady, determined leader for a courageous and valiant people who simply refuse to surrender their rights.
Bakhmut is theirs, and the home of a people who’ve just been unwilling to leave--with consequences unforeseen and certainty of great abuses their as has occurred all along. But yes, it is likely time to pull out and they’ve likely prepared a surprise strike elsewhere to dilute any modest propaganda victory. They’ve likely done as well as could be expected to pull out assets and citizens, or made arrangements that will enable this to occur quickly.
Ridiculous is that UKR would likely be able to retake the city At Will, but those fighting seem to deserve a respite. This situation reminds me of a reverse Stalingrad, although the Allies may not have provided enough support to allow them to completely turn the tables and break through and get into the rear of Bakhmut and rout the invader. Their fierce determination to protect every inch of their land and their citizens - must be commended. If we were to not provide adequate support, and the Ukrainians & Zelensky were to not commit to a ‘protect all’ mentality, it would be seen as weakness and result in more Ukrainians perhaps willing to cross over or accept a new order. That type of weak support or commitment can’t happen, nor can allowing Ukrainians that roll over to not be held accountable. However, for hostages and captured citizens and soldiers, understanding and leniency as relates to the level of prolonged suffering and/or abuse must be taken into consideration. For those who continue in cahoots with the Russians.... no quarter.
War is hell, and those who desire peace, but peace without sacrificing all that they stand for, believe in, and that leaves a weak result that may likely fail is no solution. The Russians are becoming weaker and it is simply unsustainable for them to continue the failing efforts--which will only result in a weakened position due to having to resort to the only things that they have left--abuse, atrocity, and terrorism that just weakens their position further. Critical is that Ukraine ramps up transparency and exposes Putin and his cronies, such that they are not able to truly become established, or continue their cyber warfare and rewriting Ukrainian laws and history.
Peace must come and it must be a just peace, and from a position of strength it will be achieved.
So many of them seem to have no concept of war. The Brulisov Offensive gained some ground for Russia in 1916, but what happened to Russia in 1917? Then again, these ignoramuses probably have never heard of the Brulisov Offense.
Lol, yes. This group is already thinking this offensive is the beginning of a big Russian wave, and Russia hasn't even taken Bakhmut yet. Can only imagine how twitter trolls will be if they actually take Bakhmut.
Tactical withdrawals are a necessity. It seems Ukraine has won this battle in the sense of bleeding the Russians of men and materiel. I do wonder if the Ukrainians may be luring the Russians into a trap of a kind. You mention Kupyansk being on higher ground and with well prepared defenses.
But with so many of the opinion that Bakhmut is of little or no strategic value, why the Russian fixation and why the Ukrainian insistence on defending it with such ferocity? Something just does not make sense about this location unless it really was only about attritional gains for Ukraine.
Or is Bakhmut some kind of deception op that just garners the main focus of the Russians there, fixing the Russian efforts here while the real action will be elsewhere?
Putin wants any sort of victory (which he hasn’t had since losing Kharkiv and Kherson), even if it’s a small insignificant bombed out city smaller than Springfield IL.
And UA is willing to exchange 7-1 casualties (or even 5-1) to bleed out Russia as it will weaken Russia for the coming UA offensive (Wagner is essentially done as a force and Russia has lost many of its remaining elite units as well).
Plus, it’s not like Russia would just call it a day and go home if they capture Bakhmut so might as well fight it out in Bakhmut rather than subject more cities to compete destruction.
The withdrawal by Ukrainian forces from Bakhmut should be viewed as an opportunity by Ukraine to inflict serious damage on the Russian/Wagner forces. My thinking is that when the Ukrainians withdrawal the Russians will be overly eager to advance and celebrate the "liberation" of Bakhmut. Given the poor planning and logistics we've seen so far its highly likely the Russians will over-extend their supply lines and expose their flanks. The Ukrainians can feint a counter-attack in the north then push for real gains in the southern Donbas on the east bank of the Dnieper River.
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain the situation and the possible scenarios. Your narratives are always exceptional and educational. Enlightening.
Reading how complicated doing withdrawals are makes me nervous that the Ukrainians will be able to pull it off but then I reflect that it's you can almost count on the Russians not being able to competently take advantage of opportunities that may come their way....I'd give a lot to know how well the Ukrainians have done in relative casualities. One wonders how many offensives like Bakhmut the Rusians can perform without starting a serious anti-war movement in their country. For every dead Russian there must be two or more seriously wounded ones who will come home full of talk about how glorious Putin's imperial wars really are.
Its reported that seven Russians died for every Ukrainian and we’ve seen the estimate of Russians 10,000 killed in Bakhmut. So, perhaps 1400 Ukrainian deaths? With the Russians, I have the strong suspicion that the casualty ratios we are accustomed to in the west do not apply. From the footage I have watched, battle first aid/buddy support is ignored. Few wounded would survive in that sort of environment. Not many left to tell the tale and the psychopaths in power aren’t listening...
I've heard a lot of commentors report that Russian care for the wounded is poor so I expect a higher death to injured ratio. I've heard about the 1 to 7 ratio and it sounds to 'good' to be true. I can't imagine anyone gets the chance to do careful counting of the casualtie of either side. That said with the Russians attacking and their apparent indifference to casualties and the welfare of the troops I recon the body count would be lop sided. Given Bakhmut has no strategic value perhaps the sign the Ukrainians have held it so long suggests they think the killing ratio is OK by them and their own casualties are not severe. I hope so!
I find it suspicious but not implausible. Horrible care for the wounded (especially in the so called golden hour) may well mean that the number of dead is at least double what it could be with better care. And their tactics (especially Wagner's) ensure that the ratio is lopsided to begin with. It is not unheard of for attacker to suffer incomparably higher casualties than the defenders. Even among the best armies in the world - e.g. in the battle of New Orleans (what's even more astounding is that Andrew Jackson had only a handful of regular soldiers and the rest of his force consisted of militias of various quality, many of whom did not even understand English).
Let’s hope the Russians are not just incompetent when it comes to applying pressure on the withdrawing force (they have shown no such capability to date) and are just flat tired and willing to take anything that looks like a victory, albeit pyrrhic. It is hard to imagine an anti-war movement in Putin’s Russia...any such movement would have to go beyond that to a direct challenge to Putin’s rule.
The Russian military has always been incompetent. It is a product of dysfunctional society. Remember Severodonetsk last summer (just a little to the north from Bakhmut)? It was a salient, but instead of encircling it, the Russians conducted a long series of frontal assaults, and then Russian milbloggers complained that the Ukrainians just got into trucks and drove off.
Long may it continue!...and in so far as the military reflects the society it's a pretty fair bet it will. It occurs to me that Russian military incompetence (up and down the line) is Ukraine's secret and unfailing advantage.
Just think of their use of their state of the art chemical weapon Novichok. They failed to kill either their former intelligent officer Skripal in Salisbury or the opposition leader Navalny in Russia. In both cases the identities of assassins were quickly established, and in the latter case Navalny himself called one of them, impersonated his boss and extracted some details from him. In the former case it was in fact the Russian military - both assassins were colonels in the main intelligence directorate of the Russian General Staff (and they are supposed to be much better than an average Russian colonel). Later some other officers from the same directorate went to Amsterdam on an intelligence mission. They took a taxi from their HQ in Moscow to the airport, and in order to file for expense reimbursement later, they got a receipt from the driver. The receipt showed the address where they were picked up - which for over half a century has been known as the address of the Soviet military intelligence HQ. That's the document those geniuses brought with them on a clandestine foreign mission. I don't know whether they were also wearing their uniforms.
Good analysis, then what follows a withdrawal? Russia then wins a ruined small city and can then continue using or tying up resources to make incremental geographical gains; along the lines of Blackadders' 1:1 scale battlefield map and one inch gain....
One would also assume that Ukraine is also sizing up tactical weak points further south due to Russian resources being used and expended around Bakhmut?
Same thing until the UA counteroffensive.
It will not only be a matter of Ukraine withdrawing with as few casualties as possible and in an orderly fashion. It will also require a narrative by the Ukrainian president and military commanders to explain this withdrawal with the previous most senseless losses. It is like always; soldiers fight as long as they have confidence in the leadership and their commanders.
As the piece notes, the battle for Bakhmut has diverted Russian resources to such an extent that it has meant there has been less fighting elsewhere, it has tired and seriously depleted Russian forces, and it has allowed Ukraine to husband its resources in preparation for its upcoming offensive, which will almost certainly be far more effective than the Russian. All in all, an important, and a positive strategic event for Ukraine. That will be well-understood by Ukrainian forces. I don't think there is any likelihood of loss of confidence 'in the leadership or commanders'.
Not any more senseless than any other loss due to Russia’s invasion and attack of Ukraine. If UA doesn’t stand and fight over any insignificant city, you do understand that following that logic, Russia would soon be at Kyiv, yes? It’s not like, after capturing Bakhmut, Russia would just call it a day and go home.
And Russia has expended its remaining elite units in this offensive as well.
I kind of agree with this, but I really hope Ukraine doesn't stick with Bakhmut for symbolic or political reasons. Yes, if they withdrawal, the Kremlin trolls on twitter will have a field day. Some western media sources will be doom-and-gloom, and this is a bit damaging. But not as damaging as losing actual soldiers. The reason to stay there should be that Russia has been and is losing a lot of resources bashing its head into Bakhmut for the past 8 months. Once Ukraine gives up Bakhmut, the Russian offensive could "culminate" like after Seiveirodonetsk.
The reason Ukraine should give up Bakhmut in my eyes are:
(1) Russia is most likely making a mistake going after Bakhmut. They might be encouraged by success to keep attacking.
(2) The worst thing for Ukraine would be for Gerasimov/Shoigu to be fired and a return to Surovikin/Prigozhin. It seems Gerasimov was brought back to attack, prematurely, and Surovikin wisely counceled to defend. Or at least, that's my perception.
(3) Ukraine could leverage the doom and gloom in western media for more arms.
This article seems imo to be a regurgitation of the disengagement doctrine that the author has been exposed to in his army career. I found the construct banal with little nuance. How well did this go for the US In disengaging with the enemy in Afghanistan? We get to the last para, or so, to discuss the effect of Russia capturing the devastated area. “What use could it be he postulates”. Here’s an idea, how about a powerful slap in the face to the West’s proxy war against Russia? Which, again, has us all imo, sleep walking to catastrophe. Yes, I get it, what should we do except support Ukraine. What a shame US Foreign policy dimwits have led us here. It’s going to get a lot worse from here.
FYI- I would have subscribed re; your knowledge and acumen re; the conflict, however , its clear you have a dog in the fight, theres enough partisan sites out there......
Interesting. The big question for me is how many losses each side has taken. A friend of mine met a Russian soldier on a train in Krasnodar who'd been in Bakhmut (he went for the money), and who got shot in the teeth, and luckily survived. This was last July! Nearly 8 months ago. I tend to think Russian losses in Bakhmut were probably huge. While most of them might have been pulled out of jail, it seems word got out in the jails and damaged subsequent recruiting. If convicts in jail are becoming scared to go to Ukraine, this could make subsequent mobilizations a bit harder as well.
That said, we don't really know. It might also be that the Russians are inflicting huge losses on the Ukrainians as well, and maybe the ratio is only 2:1 for Russian casualties to Ukrainian, and given Russia's roughly 3:1 population advantage, that is a win for Russia. I am skeptical though. Even if that's the case, it seems likely the number of trained Russian soldiers in Ukraine is probably less than the number of trained Ukrainian soldiers, and Russia's population advantage is only an advantage on paper, and won't help them in a late spring Ukrainian offensive unless they mobilized yesterday.
Academic prediction market on Bakhmut here: https://insightprediction.com/m/169724/will-russia-take-bakhmut-by-april-20th-2023
I really hope Ukraine manages to do this safely. One thing I don't understand (civilian here) is, given how bad tactics Russia employed, why wasn't it possible to prevent the encirclement? In the sense of, why couldn't enough firepower (arty/drones/etc.) be employed to prevent anything but frontal assaults?
Russia are desperate for a win. So give them one, but on the grounds and conditions of your choosing so that you can shape the battlespace for your next move. But don't make it easy for them either. If a tactical withdrawal is required, then do it.
Ukraine have been brilliant at deception so far. They were telegraphing a massive offensive in the south to retake Kherson - however, as soon as Russia deployed to meet them, they pivoted their focus to the north and swept through the Kharkiv region. Russia are still conducting warfare like it's a scene from Braveheart or some American Civil War movie - the opposing armies meet on a battlefield and slug it out at a pre-agreed venue, with the victor taking the spoils.
They have drawn in so many Russian resources to retaking Bakhmut - remember - not just the pointy end, but logistics, planning/command and intelligence resources, all concentrating on a victory, any victory. And if they take Bakhmut, what opportunities does it open up? The next line of defence will be even harder to overcome. Meanwhile - Ukrainian intelligence should building up a picture of where Russian resources have been drawn down to supplement the Bakhmut effort, the locations where it will be hardest for Russia to pivot back to .
Because Russia still has more firepower than UA.
Ah, I wasn’t aware of this. I thought that over the recent months, the balance tipped or at least equalised. Then yes, it makes sense.
Ukraine will outthink, out-heart, and outlast the Russki’s. They just need to receive the necessary support, know that they are the heart of the free world, and be on something close to a level field of fight. Their mettle was proven in a highly disadvantageous and sustained early effort. They come back strong each time, innovate, and seem to maintain morale--but this can’t last forever if they are just sitting ducks for missiles & can’t compete. The atrocities and inhumane treatment of civilians and children proved the Russian’s mettle, albeit they are highly skilled at disinformation, propaganda, and infiltration. Few can manage a relentless campaign, but Zelensky is a steady, determined leader for a courageous and valiant people who simply refuse to surrender their rights.
Bakhmut is theirs, and the home of a people who’ve just been unwilling to leave--with consequences unforeseen and certainty of great abuses their as has occurred all along. But yes, it is likely time to pull out and they’ve likely prepared a surprise strike elsewhere to dilute any modest propaganda victory. They’ve likely done as well as could be expected to pull out assets and citizens, or made arrangements that will enable this to occur quickly.
Ridiculous is that UKR would likely be able to retake the city At Will, but those fighting seem to deserve a respite. This situation reminds me of a reverse Stalingrad, although the Allies may not have provided enough support to allow them to completely turn the tables and break through and get into the rear of Bakhmut and rout the invader. Their fierce determination to protect every inch of their land and their citizens - must be commended. If we were to not provide adequate support, and the Ukrainians & Zelensky were to not commit to a ‘protect all’ mentality, it would be seen as weakness and result in more Ukrainians perhaps willing to cross over or accept a new order. That type of weak support or commitment can’t happen, nor can allowing Ukrainians that roll over to not be held accountable. However, for hostages and captured citizens and soldiers, understanding and leniency as relates to the level of prolonged suffering and/or abuse must be taken into consideration. For those who continue in cahoots with the Russians.... no quarter.
War is hell, and those who desire peace, but peace without sacrificing all that they stand for, believe in, and that leaves a weak result that may likely fail is no solution. The Russians are becoming weaker and it is simply unsustainable for them to continue the failing efforts--which will only result in a weakened position due to having to resort to the only things that they have left--abuse, atrocity, and terrorism that just weakens their position further. Critical is that Ukraine ramps up transparency and exposes Putin and his cronies, such that they are not able to truly become established, or continue their cyber warfare and rewriting Ukrainian laws and history.
Peace must come and it must be a just peace, and from a position of strength it will be achieved.
What worries me is a potential wave of "All is lost, we can only wait for Russia's inevitable triumph!" from idiots in the Western media and politics.
So many of them seem to have no concept of war. The Brulisov Offensive gained some ground for Russia in 1916, but what happened to Russia in 1917? Then again, these ignoramuses probably have never heard of the Brulisov Offense.
Lol, yes. This group is already thinking this offensive is the beginning of a big Russian wave, and Russia hasn't even taken Bakhmut yet. Can only imagine how twitter trolls will be if they actually take Bakhmut.
Tactical withdrawals are a necessity. It seems Ukraine has won this battle in the sense of bleeding the Russians of men and materiel. I do wonder if the Ukrainians may be luring the Russians into a trap of a kind. You mention Kupyansk being on higher ground and with well prepared defenses.
But with so many of the opinion that Bakhmut is of little or no strategic value, why the Russian fixation and why the Ukrainian insistence on defending it with such ferocity? Something just does not make sense about this location unless it really was only about attritional gains for Ukraine.
Or is Bakhmut some kind of deception op that just garners the main focus of the Russians there, fixing the Russian efforts here while the real action will be elsewhere?
Putin wants any sort of victory (which he hasn’t had since losing Kharkiv and Kherson), even if it’s a small insignificant bombed out city smaller than Springfield IL.
And UA is willing to exchange 7-1 casualties (or even 5-1) to bleed out Russia as it will weaken Russia for the coming UA offensive (Wagner is essentially done as a force and Russia has lost many of its remaining elite units as well).
Plus, it’s not like Russia would just call it a day and go home if they capture Bakhmut so might as well fight it out in Bakhmut rather than subject more cities to compete destruction.
The check move right now would be for the Allie’s to establish a no fly zone over western Ukraine, with the dam ration line being the Dnipro river.
The withdrawal by Ukrainian forces from Bakhmut should be viewed as an opportunity by Ukraine to inflict serious damage on the Russian/Wagner forces. My thinking is that when the Ukrainians withdrawal the Russians will be overly eager to advance and celebrate the "liberation" of Bakhmut. Given the poor planning and logistics we've seen so far its highly likely the Russians will over-extend their supply lines and expose their flanks. The Ukrainians can feint a counter-attack in the north then push for real gains in the southern Donbas on the east bank of the Dnieper River.
The capture of .Bahkmut may be useless from a strategic standpoint, but it is still gold from a propaganda standpoint
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain the situation and the possible scenarios. Your narratives are always exceptional and educational. Enlightening.
Excellent, excellent tutorial for us naive types!
Mick (and others), what are your thoughts on the million dollar question: the probability that Ukraine can cut the land bridge this summer?
Metaculus is at 30%. https://www.metaculus.com/questions/13531/ukraine-to-cut-land-bridge-to-crimea-by-2024/
Insight Prediction is a bit higher at 37-38%: https://insightprediction.com/m/154445/will-ukraine-sever-the-land-bridge-to-crimea-by-september-30th-2023