Bernd
05/26/2023 (Fri) 18:51
No.50300
del
05/26/2023 (Fri) 18:51
No.50300
del
>>50296
>Well I saw one article writing about the "tactical encirclement of Bakhmut, now the Russians are in trouble".
Clearly both the journalist and the intended readers never look at frontline maps on their own. It bears noting that months before they finished the battle, the Russians got very close to Khromove and Ivanivske and placed the supply roads under fire control, many commented that it was getting encircled. And yet the city's defenders didn't collapse from a lack of supplies and reinforcements, presumably they drove through the dirt roads in the middle. Where there's a will, there's a way.
This imminent Ukrainian offensive (just as Russian victory in Bakhmut, which was "imminent" for months) lost a big opportunity when the battle ended. They could've attacked elsewhere while Wagner and other good Russian units were tied up in the city and unable to respond. They had plenty of time, too. Why didn't this happen? Presumably Ukrainian formations earmarked for the offensive were rotated into "irrelevant" Bakhmut. It was the Russians who attacked elsewhere (Vuhledar), though it ended in disaster. This is one of my two "success" metrics for Bakhmut and it's in favor of the Russians, the other metric is attrition, for which there are wildly different interpretations.
>Don't worry they establish right at the beginning U.S. Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin and NATO alliance head Jens Stoltenberg, and all the western experts say it's nothingburger. And they are right in a way, the high ground at Chasiv Yar and the ridge which separates Bakhmut from the chain of towns with Kramatorsk and Sloviansk are more important. But since god knows how many Ukrainian fighters were torn into pieces (I guesstimate it between 25K and 100K, maybe I'll make a post about how I reached this) Bakhmut was a very important battle.
Back in December, Zelensky told the American Congress that Bakhmut is Ukraine's "stronghold in the east" and the fight "will change the trajectory of our war". So the city is relevant when it can generate more weapons deliveries and irrelevant when it doesn't anymore.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/22/politics/zelensky-congress-address-transcript/index.html
>Well I saw one article writing about the "tactical encirclement of Bakhmut, now the Russians are in trouble".
Clearly both the journalist and the intended readers never look at frontline maps on their own. It bears noting that months before they finished the battle, the Russians got very close to Khromove and Ivanivske and placed the supply roads under fire control, many commented that it was getting encircled. And yet the city's defenders didn't collapse from a lack of supplies and reinforcements, presumably they drove through the dirt roads in the middle. Where there's a will, there's a way.
This imminent Ukrainian offensive (just as Russian victory in Bakhmut, which was "imminent" for months) lost a big opportunity when the battle ended. They could've attacked elsewhere while Wagner and other good Russian units were tied up in the city and unable to respond. They had plenty of time, too. Why didn't this happen? Presumably Ukrainian formations earmarked for the offensive were rotated into "irrelevant" Bakhmut. It was the Russians who attacked elsewhere (Vuhledar), though it ended in disaster. This is one of my two "success" metrics for Bakhmut and it's in favor of the Russians, the other metric is attrition, for which there are wildly different interpretations.
>Don't worry they establish right at the beginning U.S. Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin and NATO alliance head Jens Stoltenberg, and all the western experts say it's nothingburger. And they are right in a way, the high ground at Chasiv Yar and the ridge which separates Bakhmut from the chain of towns with Kramatorsk and Sloviansk are more important. But since god knows how many Ukrainian fighters were torn into pieces (I guesstimate it between 25K and 100K, maybe I'll make a post about how I reached this) Bakhmut was a very important battle.
Back in December, Zelensky told the American Congress that Bakhmut is Ukraine's "stronghold in the east" and the fight "will change the trajectory of our war". So the city is relevant when it can generate more weapons deliveries and irrelevant when it doesn't anymore.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/22/politics/zelensky-congress-address-transcript/index.html