2022/24 Russian-Ukrainian War

[kEiThZ]

Ukrainian forces need to leave Bakhmut. There insistance to fight at all costs is going to result in either high casualties or a significant number of POWs. Either would be a significant strategic mistake, though I'd argue it already is one given there are no safe routes out of the city.

Their purpose in Bakhmut is to draw Russians to attrit. They are somewhere between 7:1 and 10:1 in their favour on losses. That's why they are holding on to Bakhmut. As long as the Russians keep committing forces to the fight, it's worthwhile to stay. I know that sounds crazy and very macabre, but this is sadly how wars are fought.

The Russians have lost so many forces in and around Bakhmut that they are almost certainly opening up gaps elsewhere that will allow for a Ukrainian offensive. Kharkiv 2.0.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

HAHAHA:

AoD

 

[Towered]

Their purpose in Bakhmut is to draw Russians to attrit. They are somewhere between 7:1 and 10:1 in their favour on losses. That's why they are holding on to Bakhmut. As long as the Russians keep committing forces to the fight, it's worthwhile to stay. I know that sounds crazy and very macabre, but this is sadly how wars are fought.

The Russians have lost so many forces in and around Bakhmut that they are almost certainly opening up gaps elsewhere that will allow for a Ukrainian offensive. Kharkiv 2.0.

Agreed. It might seem crazy or even dumb of the UA to try to hold on to Bakhmut so stubbornly, but they are buying valuable time. It's the same tactic they used in the untenable defense of the Mariupol steelworks, where they tied down Russian forces for weeks (months?) even though they ultimately had no hope of winning that battle. If every single insignificant town or village becomes a meat grinder like Bakhmut, what hope do the Russians have of coming anywhere even close to achieving their goals? The Russians have been trying to take this single town now for 7 or 8 months - how many resources have they blown on this?

And in such a weakened state, they'll really be in trouble later this year when Ukraine starts getting those western tanks and long range artillery.

 

[DSC]

This from Economist:

Yet the fixation on tanks has distracted from a more important shift in strategy. In December America and Britain realised that a protracted war was not in the West’s interests. Russia, moreover, was even weaker than previously thought. The mood, says one official involved in those discussions, was: “If we want something to change, we need to change something”. The turning-point came on January 20th at the eighth meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, an American-led meeting of defence ministers held roughly monthly at a big American air base at Ramstein in Germany. There, allies agreed to equip Ukraine with more than a division’s worth of kit, with the aim of having much of it in place by the end of March.

The flow of arms has accordingly turned from a trickle to a flood. Of all the military aid pledged by the Pentagon since the war began, 40%—over $8bn—has come in the three months since December 9th (see chart). One European defence official says that the infusion of arms agreed in Germany in January alone amounts to two-thirds of the total sent to Ukraine in all of 2022. Most of the donations are not as sexy as tanks, but are still crucial—the latest American package includes armoured bridge-laying vehicles, for instance, which would be vital for any offensive in the south or east.
Ukraine’s army is being transformed as a result. The bulk of its hardware is still of Soviet origin. But whereas the ratio of Ukrainian to Western kit stood at five to one at the end of last year, that is expected to fall to five to two as the aid flows in. In other words, almost a third of Ukraine’s army will soon have NATO-standard equipment. General Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s top officer, hopes that he will eventually have three new army corps at his disposal, each with six brigades, and each comprising more than 20,000 men.

 

[kEiThZ]

A Western equipped armoured division would let them beat back the Russians in the South and East. Would need more to break in to Crimea.

 

[Towered]

A Western equipped armoured division would let them beat back the Russians in the South and East. Would need more to break in to Crimea.

We owe them the full capacity to re-take Crimea for sitting on our laurels in 2014 and appeasing the vile Putin.

No more compromises. No negotiations.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Apart from Ukraine itself, it's noteworthy that Moldova and Georgia also formally applied for EU membership last week.

The Georgians held a pro-EU rally. I just hope this doesn’t go the way of the Arab Spring.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1633483624950505473

 

[Bjays92]

Agreed. It might seem crazy or even dumb of the UA to try to hold on to Bakhmut so stubbornly, but they are buying valuable time. It's the same tactic they used in the untenable defense of the Mariupol steelworks, where they tied down Russian forces for weeks (months?) even though they ultimately had no hope of winning that battle. If every single insignificant town or village becomes a meat grinder like Bakhmut, what hope do the Russians have of coming anywhere even close to achieving their goals? The Russians have been trying to take this single town now for 7 or 8 months - how many resources have they blown on this?

And in such a weakened state, they'll really be in trouble later this year when Ukraine starts getting those western tanks and long range artillery.

I have to disagree with this. It made sense in Mariupol because they were genuinely surrounded and had nowhere to go. The remainder of the troops were going to be taken out of action no matter what, either KIA or POWs. Of course in the scenario where you are inevitably going to lose and have nowhere to go, but are inflicting high casualties, you will continue to do so.

Bakhmut is different. There is only one road left in and out of the city, and it is within Russian artillery range so it's constantly under fire. That means it's difficult getting troops both in and out yet they're sending new troops in anyway. Ukrainians are beginning to suffer heavy losses, not just in personnel but also in equipment due to muddy conditions on the one road in and out of town. They're also throwing some of their most experience combat fighters into the defence of the city potentially throwing their lives away. It has made sense to defend Bakhmut up until this point, but it is no longer worth the additional losses or risk of encirclement and mass casualties for Ukraine. They should withdraw to more fortified positions since Russia's offensive capability here has almost certainly culminated anyway.

Lastly re Keith's point about Kharkiv 2.0, I'm skeptical of that too. Russian defensive lines are now insanely heavily fortified across the east and south, which was not the case at the time of the Kharkiv offensive. Bakhmut also still primarily consists of Wager losses though they have been plugged by some conscripts. Either way, there aren't any places along the front-line right now that are nearly as undermanned as they were during the Kharkiv offensive last year. I'd love to see the Ukrainians make significant gains in a spring offensive, but underwhelming western aid, particularly on the tank and aircraft front, in combination with heavy fortifications along the front make me skeptical Ukraine will be able to make significant progress any more than Russia can.

 

[Bjays92]

Ukrainian forces still trying to hold Bakhmut despite heavy casualties

Soldiers and analysts suggest defending city has become more of a political than practical issue, as Russian push continues

www.theguardian.com

 

[Towered]

I have to disagree with this. It made sense in Mariupol because they were genuinely surrounded and had nowhere to go. The remainder of the troops were going to be taken out of action no matter what, either KIA or POWs. Of course in the scenario where you are inevitably going to lose and have nowhere to go, but are inflicting high casualties, you will continue to do so.

Bakhmut is different. There is only one road left in and out of the city, and it is within Russian artillery range so it's constantly under fire. That means it's difficult getting troops both in and out yet they're sending new troops in anyway. Ukrainians are beginning to suffer heavy losses, not just in personnel but also in equipment due to muddy conditions on the one road in and out of town. They're also throwing some of their most experience combat fighters into the defence of the city potentially throwing their lives away. It has made sense to defend Bakhmut up until this point, but it is no longer worth the additional losses or risk of encirclement and mass casualties for Ukraine. They should withdraw to more fortified positions since Russia's offensive capability here has almost certainly culminated anyway.

Lastly re Keith's point about Kharkiv 2.0, I'm skeptical of that too. Russian defensive lines are now insanely heavily fortified across the east and south, which was not the case at the time of the Kharkiv offensive. Bakhmut also still primarily consists of Wager losses though they have been plugged by some conscripts. Either way, there aren't any places along the front-line right now that are nearly as undermanned as they were during the Kharkiv offensive last year. I'd love to see the Ukrainians make significant gains in a spring offensive, but underwhelming western aid, particularly on the tank and aircraft front, in combination with heavy fortifications along the front make me skeptical Ukraine will be able to make significant progress any more than Russia can.

The BBC has the combat losses in Bakhmut at a 5:1 ratio in favour of Ukraine (it may be even higher than that) - that's why they're still holding on.

 

[Bjays92]

The BBC has the combat losses in Bakhmut at a 5:1 ratio in favour of Ukraine (it may be even higher than that) - that's why they're still holding on.

Yes but they've had those ratios throughout the course of the war and better. They're under fire from three sides. If they retreat and engage from more secure positions that ratio will go even higher. 5:1 is not a bad ratio by any means but Ukraine is expending some of their most experienced fighters against convicts.

 

[Towered]

Yes but they've had those ratios throughout the course of the war and better. They're under fire from three sides. If they retreat and engage from more secure positions that ratio will go even higher. 5:1 is not a bad ratio by any means but Ukraine is expending some of their most experienced fighters against convicts.

Well, we can only speculate what their strategy is in refusing to withdraw. It seems that it's to keep the Russians focused on a small area where they can inflict staggering losses on them while buying valuable time for Western weapons deliveries en masse and training of troops on said weaponry that will give them the offensive edge they need after winter.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Donald Trump: I’d have let Putin annex Ukraine to end the war​

Former US president says Russia ‘would have never’ invaded if he were still in power, but also claims he may have ‘made a deal’ if necessary

Donald Trump indicated that he may have “made a deal” allowing Russia to take over parts of Ukraine to end the war if he were president at the time of the invasion.

Mr Trump said it would have been an “at worst” scenario, and would not have happened because Putin would not have dared invade Ukraine at all if he had been in the White House.

The former president told Sean Hannity’s radio show: “Don’t forget, under Bush they take over Georgia, under Obama they took over Crimea. And, under Biden, they’re taking over everything. It looks like they’re going to take over everything, the whole thing, they’re going to go for the whole enchilada, they’re going for everything, that’s what it looks like to me.

“And, under Trump, you know what they took over? They took nothing, Russia. First time, first president in a long time. He [Putin] understood. He would have never done it.”

Mr Trump added: “That’s without even negotiating a deal. I could have negotiated. At worst, I could have made a deal to take over something, you know, there are certain areas that are Russian speaking areas, right, like, but you could have worked a deal. And now Ukraine is just being blown to smithereens.”

The former president said: “So many more people are dying than recorded and that’s something that never would have happened.”

‘Peace through strength’​

Mr Trump has repeatedly said that the Ukraine invasion would not have taken place had he been re-elected in 2020.

He has said that it would have been prevented by his policy of “peace through strength”.

Mr Trump has also said that he could end the current war in “no longer than one day” if he was in the White House.

His latest comment came as Kevin McCarthy, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, declined an invitation to visit President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv.

Mr Zelensky said the trip might change Mr McCarthy’s “assumptions” about US military aid to Ukraine.

However, Mr McCarthy said: “I will continue to get my briefings and others, but I don’t have to go to Ukraine or Kyiv to see it.

“And my point has always been, I won’t provide a blank cheque for anything.”

 

[Bjays92]

Well, we can only speculate what their strategy is in refusing to withdraw. It seems that it's to keep the Russians focused on a small area where they can inflict staggering losses on them while buying valuable time for Western weapons deliveries en masse and training of troops on said weaponry that will give them the offensive edge they need after winter.

I'd argue that it's not strategic but political. Zelensky has staked a lot on defending Bakhmut and doesn't want to withdraw. Certain regional commanders in Ukraine have virtually said as much in recent days. I could be wrong and I certainly hope there's sound strategic doctrine here, but I think it's one of the few times since the early days of the war where the Ukrainian government is making a strategic mistake for the sake of optics.

 

[Towered]

I'd argue that it's not strategic but political. Zelensky has staked a lot on defending Bakhmut and doesn't want to withdraw. Certain regional commanders in Ukraine have virtually said as much in recent days. I could be wrong and I certainly hope there's sound strategic doctrine here, but I think it's one of the few times since the early days of the war where the Ukrainian government is making a strategic mistake for the sake of optics.

Maybe, but they're not alone in this fight. They're regularly consulting with the US and NATO regarding intelligence and strategy.