re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

It's starting to look like things are heating up in and around Bakhmut again.

Can someone with a better understanding of tactics and strategy than myself make Bakhmut make sense to me?

Russia started their winter offensive and soon Bakhmut became the focus. Western military strategists and even the Ukrainian MoD said for months that the city wasn't a key part strategically to the war. So we all sat back as Wagner threw their prison conscripts into the meat grinder and thought that this was just a "bleed them white" type of situation playing out. That continues for months with slow progress made by the Russians and then one night Zelensky notes in his daily update that Bakhmut IS a key part of the war and that if it falls, the entire front in the area is ripe for collapse with the Russians having easy access to a couple more key cities in front of them. So they keep the supply road open for a few more months and continue to make the Russians pay for every inch.

During this stage everyone is saying that this is great because despite Zelensky's claims, it still isn't very important other than maybe symbolically for both sides now, but they will defend the city til the last meter to buy as much time to buildup, train, and equip for the spring/summer counter offensive that is currently going on. And they did their job, yet, those key cities behind them, Russia never made any play for them. So things stagnate as Wagner withdraws and hands the city over to the Russian regular forces.

The buildup of equipment and training of new men seems to be as good as it's going to get and the UAF starts on its long awaited counteroffensive. It starts off with a disaster in one area and makes small gains in a couple other areas. Now, as you said, Bakhmut and it's surroundings are hot again and UAF are throwing in at least one, and possibly another, of their new brigades here.

Sorry for the long winded recap, but if the place was of such little strategic value, why commit such valuable forces to retake a city that they've already lost and claimed wasn't all that important in the first place? Does it have to do with how little it has been fortified due to all the fighting in the sector while other parts were built up while the world's focus was on Bakhmut? I'd honestly like to try and understand the reasoning here.

quote:

---

It's starting to look like things are heating up in and around Bakhmut again.

---

It’s kind of becoming this war’s version of Verdun.

What area would you say was a disaster for the Ukrainians?

I forget the name of the village but in the very beginning losing the Bradley IFVs, the mine clearing vehicles and Leopards in the columns.

I'm aware they recovered almost, or nearly, all of the equipment, but it's not a good way to start your offensive that the world had been anticipating for months on end.

I brought it up earlier in this thread about the vast defenses being built up, especially in the South and Southeast of Ukraine by the Russians and was basically laughed at by several people saying that cinder blocks and trenches wouldn't do anything to slow down the hammer blow that was coming. I even brought up air support and the fact that it wasn't just a line of "cinder blocks and trenches" but a layered defense network that the enemy had ample time to build up and reinforce. And here we are: slow moving and understated considering most people's expectations. I feared this would happen, and there would be a backlash and slow down of equipment flowing to Ukraine. I hope the slowdown of arms and equipment doesn't materialize, but there has already been backlash at the underwhelming nature of the progress so far. I know enough to be patient, but that may not be the case will people who matter a whole hell of a lot more than me.

quote:

---

for Russia it was the prize for both taking remaining territory on the Oblast they have claimed to have incorporated into Russia as well as a symbolic target.

From Ukraine, they needed a place to battle Russia while they trained and received new western equipment. an urban battlefield benefits the defender, and so they had a place where they could focus Russian forces while inflicting large losses on the enemy (their losses were high as well but Russians were worse)

---

Yeah, I understand all of this. And don't necessarily disagree. I was up in arms wondering why Ukraine hadn't tactically retreated well before they did.

quote:

---

now it seams two fold for Ukraine in the counter offensive. they see a path the attack the flanks outside of the city center. geography helps here. they only need to take the flanks up to the river and Russia will have to choose in risk encirclement or pull back to the rive, second if Ukraine can push Russia out of the city it is a symbolic win taking back Russia' prize

---

This is more what my post was asking. And I understand the psychoblow that would give to Russian forces. But aren't there more areas that could be exploited with more strategic implications?

And again, I'm just asking trying to understand. Like, if it's as simple as it's the least defended sector to make a breakthrough and turn towards more strategic sectors, I'm all for it. But if it's just to deal a psychological blow, that doesn't seem like the best route to take their objectives.

quote:

---

This is more what my post was asking. And I understand the psychoblow that would give to Russian forces. But aren't there more areas that could be exploited with more strategic implications?

And again, I'm just asking trying to understand. Like, if it's as simple as it's the least defended sector to make a breakthrough and turn towards more strategic sectors, I'm all for it. But if it's just to deal a psychological blow, that doesn't seem like the best route to take their objectives.

---

1) Wagner was in Bakhmut sector and was the major reason they captured the city. Wagner was pulled out and russian consrtript troops were used to replace them. so you have weaker unit defending. also, since this are was recently captured, there are not much in the way of well properad defenses like in the south or NE where Russia had time to prepare defenses.

goal are combat is two fold. 1) take territory and 2) reduce the combat effectiveness of your enemy. IMO, bakhmut sector is more about taking out enemy forces as well as pinning down forces that could be used to reinforce elsewhere.

I wouldn’t call that a disaster but definitely not how they wanted to start. Hasn’t really seemed to have any lasting damage though. I look at Bakhmut like the other poster. Seems to be sunken cost thinking. I know it is a bit of a stereotype but people in that part of the world seem to be very stubborn.

9 more pages baws. You have about 4,000 more pages until you achieve relevance

Not insulting anyone. You guys really are nerds