It's not a huge town, and Russia has already used phosphorous area weapons and shit last year. They can escalate to making the entire area inhospitable, if they need to.
I hope I'm wrong, but Ukraine concentrating troops seems like a bad move unless Russia is in much worse shape than I would have thought possible.
Yes that is indeed what would happen. OTOH the UAF have absolutely pasted the russian forces when they've tried to move across open ground around Vuhledar. If they have room to fall back before any major cities and fortifications set up they might as well trade it for russian lives and equippment.Originally Posted by VARRAKK
It makes sense to keep RU busy in Bakhmut. If they let them have it, then eventually it is another urban area they have to push them out of.
City is already destroyed, they give it up will make the next city a target for destruction.
Prigozhin is whining again for exclusive supply of artillery ammo he doesn't get anymore. He envisions a scary story of surrounding Bakhmut, and then getting surrounded outside on flanks by coming Ukrainian reinforcements. He was given six months and the Russian prison population, and he couldn't take one town and move the front ten kilometers. I'm sure the Russian military have no love for him, or the risk of Wagner taking attention, funds and resources from their efforts, so of course they will try to undercut him.
They only receive ammo supplies once per week.
After they have been supplied, UAF blows it up and Prigozhin will be all tears for the next 7 days.
Why is it called earth, when it is mostly water???
To be fair though, we have believable (i.e. non-Russian) reports of UA war crimes, too. Though admittedly to a far lesser extend and case numbers.
War is fucking hell on earth. And such events are literal death spirals, where one side commits these atrocities, because they wittnessed the other side do it.
Last edited by Hel OWeen; March 8 2023 at 12:34:43 PM. Reason: Link fixed.
Well, given reports I see, Ukrainian troops inside Bakhmut are estimated to be around 1-3k because more is not feasible to resupply (also there's only so many frontline troops you actually need to hold a town). The reserves are kept west of Bakhmut, attacking the pincers and building a second line of defense.
What I understand to be the bigger pivot, is that Ukraine manages to keep the city supplied and troops replenished. This speaks to the enhanced capabilties as compared to earlier in the war, where Ukraine can now locally dominate the artillery war and push russian artillery back so that they can only sporadically shell supply routes and troop concentrations west of Bakhmut. This is most likely due to more advanced western support(HIMARS, good counter-battery radars, guided ammunition, plenty cheap drones). Additionally, air support by Russia seems to be mostly out of the picture here.
Capabilities which are necessary to run offensive operations. Question is if they can keep up the shelling, ammunition supplies will be key.
Last edited by Fara; March 8 2023 at 11:53:39 AM.
Ukrainians have already mounted a response. The first confirmed dirty bomb.
No need to actively retake it: encircle and siege until they surrender. Given Russia's "care" for their soldiers, I doubt once encircled, they'd receive much supply to keep them fighting. There also might be a couple of Russian soldiers who'd welcome the opportunity to surrender aka "escape the meat grinder".
I think the estimated 5:1 to 7:1 loss ratio is why the Ukes are still fighting. Grind down them rusrus.
"Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang
Bakhmut looks more like Verdun every day. The attack was intended to bleed the Ukrainians just as Von Falkenhayn intended to bleed the French and backfired and ended up costing the Russians far more as well as distracting them from other fronts. As long as Bakhmut can be held cheaply it's worth doing.
The frontlines look dangerous though. I do hope UA forces pull out before the Russians manage to encircle them. As mentioned often already: the Russian army may look terrible, but they still have the numbers advantage and are obviously willing to shove more meat into the grinder. To a point where the grinder aka UKR forces may become clogged and is locked in place.
And in the meantime Russia continues to bombard Ukranian infrastructure with long range missiles. I mean, why don't we arm Ukraine with long range missiles so they can hit launch sites, oil refineries. Terror balance is the only thing Putin seems to respond to after all.The frontlines look dangerous though. I do hope UA forces pull out before the Russians manage to encircle them. As mentioned often already: the Russian army may look terrible, but they still have the numbers advantage and are obviously willing to shove more meat into the grinder. To a point where the grinder aka UKR forces may become clogged and is locked in place.
Except terror attacks didn't break Ukraine and they'll not break Russia either. On the contrary, larger scale attacks on infrastructure in Russia proper might actually unify the country and spin the whole "we're defending against attacks" further. Limited strikes at military infrastructure I think could work, but it's a thin line to walk.And in the meantime Russia continues to bombard Ukranian infrastructure with long range missiles. I mean, why don't we arm Ukraine with long range missiles so they can hit launch sites, oil refineries. Terror balance is the only thing Putin seems to respond to after all.The frontlines look dangerous though. I do hope UA forces pull out before the Russians manage to encircle them. As mentioned often already: the Russian army may look terrible, but they still have the numbers advantage and are obviously willing to shove more meat into the grinder. To a point where the grinder aka UKR forces may become clogged and is locked in place.
The money is better put at buying more ammo.
Also, all these missiles are either launched from planes (TU-22 & 95) or vessels in the Black Sea.Except terror attacks didn't break Ukraine and they'll not break Russia either. On the contrary, larger scale attacks on infrastructure in Russia proper might actually unify the country and spin the whole "we're defending against attacks" further. Limited strikes at military infrastructure I think could work, but it's a thin line to walk.And in the meantime Russia continues to bombard Ukranian infrastructure with long range missiles. I mean, why don't we arm Ukraine with long range missiles so they can hit launch sites, oil refineries. Terror balance is the only thing Putin seems to respond to after all.The frontlines look dangerous though. I do hope UA forces pull out before the Russians manage to encircle them. As mentioned often already: the Russian army may look terrible, but they still have the numbers advantage and are obviously willing to shove more meat into the grinder. To a point where the grinder aka UKR forces may become clogged and is locked in place.
The money is better put at buying more ammo.
But they only intercepted 34 or 81 missiles. roughly 40% when it is normally around 80%.
Why is it called earth, when it is mostly water???
That is dangerous territory though. I've been thinking about this a lot and haven't come to a conclusion yet if I would support or oppose that. No one expects the Ukraine to drive the Leo2s and Bradleys up to Moscow. But jets and these kind of weapons would let them operate in Russian territory. And while the official doctrine would exempt any civilian target, a rogue local commander, e.g. enraged by the mayhem the Russians cause to Ukrainian civilians or simply a misguided attack/misidentified target might very well cause civilian losses in Russia. By NATO weapons no less. That's an escalation the West currently tries to avoid.
I understand that rational reasoning. But OTOH I feel like we're forcing the Ukraine to brawl with an arm tied to their back.
That pretty much sums up my thinking as well. It sure would be nice if the Russian airforce brass could start sweating in their comfy chesterfield couches at their bases far behind the frontlines though.That is dangerous territory though. I've been thinking about this a lot and haven't come to a conclusion yet if I would support or oppose that. No one expects the Ukraine to drive the Leo2s and Bradleys up to Moscow. But jets and these kind of weapons would let them operate in Russian territory. And while the official doctrine would exempt any civilian target, a rogue local commander, e.g. enraged by the mayhem the Russians cause to Ukrainian civilians or simply a misguided attack/misidentified target might very well cause civilian losses in Russia. By NATO weapons no less. That's an escalation the West currently tries to avoid.
I understand that rational reasoning. But OTOH I feel like we're forcing the Ukraine to brawl with an arm tied to their back.
Meanwhile the mobilized Russians are getting restless.As mentioned often already: the Russian army may look terrible, but they still have the numbers advantage and are obviously willing to shove more meat into the grinder.
This battalion prefers prison to certain death. They are talking about mutiny and resisting any attempts to coerce them with force. How long till we start seeing Russian officers fragged?
Ukraine is buying time at Bahmut until the soldiers trained in NATO countries return and until the armored vehicles arrive in sufficient numbers.
Surprisingly, Russia is running out of ammunition.
"According to Sky News, two Russian-flagged cargo ships left an Iranian port in January this year, carrying around 100 million rounds of ammunition, around 300,000 shells, as well as ammunition for rocket launchers, mortars and machine guns.
On both ships bound for Russia were approximately 200 sea containers of weapons. Moscow, according to the source, paid for all this in cash."
Would be a shame if something happened to them...
We are at war and we need to do everything to win. And we already esclade a lot, no one is discussing delivering artillery, planes and tanks, NATO weapons to Ukraine a year ago, but it took the Bucha massacre to offer what Ukraine needs to win. Now they are holding back delivering long-range missiles and cluster munitions, but 2-3 more buildings erased or POWs executed in cold blood and Ukraine will receive these as well. I don't believe attacking Russian teritory is out of table if is a legitimate military target.That is dangerous territory though. I've been thinking about this a lot and haven't come to a conclusion yet if I would support or oppose that. No one expects the Ukraine to drive the Leo2s and Bradleys up to Moscow. But jets and these kind of weapons would let them operate in Russian territory. And while the official doctrine would exempt any civilian target, a rogue local commander, e.g. enraged by the mayhem the Russians cause to Ukrainian civilians or simply a misguided attack/misidentified target might very well cause civilian losses in Russia. By NATO weapons no less. That's an escalation the West currently tries to avoid.
I understand that rational reasoning. But OTOH I feel like we're forcing the Ukraine to brawl with an arm tied to their back.
Some of ammo changed side or Iranians made some extra cash:Would be a shame if something happened to them...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks