Not suggesting Ukraine didn't take that position, but for weeks many questioned, almost to the point of criticizing Ukraine's leadership, about putting so much resources into defending a relatively strategically unimportant town. A possible explanation is that Russia was willing to sacrifice a great deal more to take it.
“We have to hold on to Bakhmut at all costs! ... To relinquish Bakhmut would constitute a colossal defeat ... ah well, minor hiccup.”
It is interesting to see both sides here are what they want to see. Bahkmut isn’t devoid of value, it’s a regional hub roads wise and has high ground that puts neighboring industrial towns at risk from artillery. Bht st the same time, it’s not exactly Kiev, and Russia was losing 800 men a day last week trying to take it. Which doesn’t paint a good picture for their overall effort, considering the front is several hundred miles long and this is one town. And the fact that Itksine blew up another 100 plus tanks means that Russia can’t advance except by throwing men at the problem, which Bahkmut is showing, and again might not be sustainable. But a win there would be an important moral victory for Russia, and a moderate strategic one.
It’s possible. I don’t rule it out. I just want to see more concrete information before casually assuming this withdrawal is all a part of Ukraine’s plan. Let’s remember how laughably ignorant the Russian trolls looked when they said the disorganized retreat from Kyiv, leaving dead and functional vehicles behind, was actually part of a deliberate military deception.
Realizing that Ukraine is all but lost, breast-beating Murcans retreating to the satisfaction of knowing that Russia may have had setbacks here and there.
I disagree with the second notion, at least for the moment. It’s a victory but probably not on the order of a strategic one. Russia is of course going to highlight it, just as Ukraine is going to minimize it, but we need to recognize that as information operations. A strategic victory for Russia would look more like a major breakthrough that caused the entire Ukrainian line to collapse and have to retreat to, say, west of the Dnieper. Whatever it is we are seeing, it is not that. Ukraine appears to be withdrawing from the salient in good order, not leaving people or equipment behind. If that is the case, then it is not a catastrophic loss for Ukraine. Until Russia crosses a line that brings in NATO, Ukraine’s best strategy is to play for time and enemy casualties. They win by not losing big, allowing domestic pressure in Russia to build.
A year ago today, Bellingcat concluded that the Russian military had a week’s worth of resources left and would then collapse.
This is why Bakhmut is a colossal defeat. The US is fighting Russia with Ukrainian soldiers. And Bakhmut is where tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers were being fed to die.
Don't discount the advantage of delay with respect to the introduction of new and superior weapons to the landscape. It appears that the first round of longer range weapons has been deployed with precision at distance. Imo, follow the field they are shaping with the new capabilities and they appear to be softening Crimea and Mariupol. Another 45 - 60 days of that and positioning of additional homars, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and mine clearing equipment before a push for Ukraine to take Crimea. I read a piece that documented a massive purchase of mine clearing equipment by US for Ukraine. Didn't see a required delivery date but they would be foolish to lose all those new tanks to mines
Good, fair analysis. I just don’t see the domestic pressure building within Russia. Putin benefitted on that front if it’s true about the mass exodus of men from Russia’s borders. It’s much easier to control a population who is content with the status quo and is unable to muster the manpower needed to overthrow the Kremlin. Everybody who cared and could do something about it has left.
The people leaving Russia is a double edged sword. Yes, these are the people who might theoretically “lead” a revolution against Putin. But losing them also cripples Russia long term. It weakens Russia, but also makes it harder to oust Putin. I don’t think anyone thought a populist militia group was going to walk into the Kremlin and demand Putin’s ouster. These totalitarian authoritarian states are too locked down and surveilled, these opposition groups could never form, they get crushed if they even sniff winning an “election” in Russia. Not domestically anyway, they have to expatriate to be “opposition” to the authoritarian, and even then speaking against the regime as expatriates is far from risk free (Iran and Russia aren’t too shy about trying to kill dissidents). The slim hope was maybe an oligarch had the clout to take him out from the inside. Someone with huge insider $$$ who got accustomed to enjoying spending it in the west, and didn’t want their wealth stripped as a result of Putin’s war. Unfortunately it seems Putin had that pretty well locked down, the oligarchs were under Putin’s thumb not the other way. But the longer this drags out something like that is probably still the best hope for a more expedited end to this war (of course a Russian civil a war would have its own set of risk factors).
As you noted, a hope. Not really something we can rely upon happening and so we could conceivably lose ground by not making a settlement today. The longer the war drags and any advancements made by the Russians are going to hamper NATO’s bargaining power. If we’re being honest here, who really sees a full Russian retreat including Crimea and the Donbas without direct engagement by NATO troops? That is highly unlikely.
Interestingly, it looks far more likely as a possibility today than it did before the invasion. But for them to retake, it does probably require the collapse of the Russian regime. Not really imminent or inevitable. But if Russia keeps throwing bodies and gear at minimal gains anything is possible. Problem is Putin likely nukes Kyiv before allowing too much progress in that “total collapse” direction.
Yeah, anything is possible. I mean, yeah we could go 16-0 next season. As long as it’s possible, we should flesh it out and analyze its prospects, because after all, who am I to say we won’t go 16-0 next season? And you go back to collapse of the Russian regime and I don’t see it. There is more opportunity for regime change in Iran, tbh. Putin laid the groundwork for this over a period of 20 years. There’s absolutely no sign of an uprising happening in Moscow. Believe me, if there was, you’d heard about it by now. We’re all over this, but the resistance inside Russia is not there.
The military apparatus could collapse without an “uprising in Moscow” being the driver of the collapse. A military failure could ultimately precipitate the collapse. Just like other things could cause internal chaos and possible swift end to the war, such as Putin’s untimely death. I’m just saying it isn’t inevitable. But neither is Ukraine’s defense predicate on the imminence of a Russian regime collapse. Ukraine is its own sovereign country, so really it’s up to them. All we are doing is giving them tools to survive against Putin’s assault. The concept of Russian regime collapse is just a possible byproduct of Russia failing in Ukraine. You are framing it all wrong, that we need regime collapse to justify defending Ukraine. We don’t. This is Russia’s folly. They invaded, they were the aggressor. That is enough justification. Russia could also choose to end the war at any time. Most likely they won’t, Putin fancies the long game. He may be content to draw it out without regard to human life and hope he can get Trump in the WH in 2024 to wreak havoc with NATO support. They don’t even really hide it at this point.
That change doesn't require Putin being voted out of office, which is not likely. A simple fall out of a window, poison in his food, or bullet it to the head, all from within, would do nicely.
Bahkmut is not a city anyone should want to invade. It is a small bunch of concrete apartment buildings with great defensive capability. If you have the city, and someone is dumb enough to want to invade it, then by all means defend it and wipe out as many of the invaders as you can. Just don't get encircled. The smart thing to do with a city like Bahkmut is to capture the ground around it and watch it from a distance. The occupiers will give up eventually. I believe that's what Ukraine was working on when they re-took the city, and Russia abandoned it just before being encircled. It is harder for an external force to survive a siege because the locals will try not to provide food to them, but they will provide intel on the city to the local team. Again, Russia is not fighting smart. But it is not that big a deal if Ukraine loses Bahkmut. It is more important to not lose too many troops there. It provides a small psychological edge to Russia, but if Russia continues to fight that way, they will be destroyed. Every day they replace injured or killed (experienced and well-trained) troops with conscripts. Before deciding which side is winning or losing this war, I would wait until enough of the western tanks arrive in Ukraine to get involved in the action. They could easily change the war for Ukraine.
