Russian invasion of Ukraine

After a day of conflicting reports, Zelensky - speaking in his native language - turns to Bakhmut.

Although not tactically crucial, the ruined city has taken on a symbolic importance after months of fighting.

Zelensky says Ukraine's military personnel in Bakhmut are "accomplishing a very important mission".

The Ukrainian president says "he will not share" precise details but insists the city "is not occupied by Russia" as of today.

"There are no two or three interpretations of those words," he concludes.

 
Joe Biden confirmed that the United States will soon begin training Ukrainian pilots on fourth-generation F-16 fighter jets. Asked by a journalist whether he agrees with the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry about the "colossal risks" associated with the supply of F-16s to Ukraine, Biden said: "For them, yes."

4c23a89c8a533f7f450c30e22863c212.gif
 
In all honesty, I have covered many wars in several decades and I can say that I haven't seen in a long time a more hysteric way to declare "victory" as we see now around Bakhmut. And I'm not even into the semantics whether Russians hold 95%, 98% or 100%. The very fact that they phrase it that way is hilarious in its own.

As I have mentioned already few days ago, Russians do not intend to move any further, or more precisely, they are not capable to move any further, which simply begs the question what was this all about. What strategic value offers Bakhmut in itself? The answer is simple. None. This fact was even stated by Prigozhin, Strelkov and others. It is a military travesty, aiming only for political games of the involved Russian warlords.

The Ukrainian strategy on the other side has been coherent and quite clear. First, to deny Russians entry to Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, secondly, bind Russian forces and prepare for their counteroffensive and, third, in the process decimating their ranks, which - when reflecting 100,000 Russian casualties - they have achieved with flying colors. The only threat was a potential encirclement of Bakhmut with the subsequent destruction of the Ukrainian armies in it, but that was averted and Russians were forced to run against the heaviest fortification, a stupidity in itself and exactly how Ukrainian strategist can ask for.

Ukrainians have even achieved additional tactical advantages by binding additional Russian forces in Bakhmut. Russians were so obsessed with Bakhmut that they were depleting lines and more importantly ammunition in Kreminna, Svatove, Avdiivka and Vuhledar. Literally every single one of those named areas ended in total disasters. Especially, Vuhledar can be called an epic fail.

However, when you look at the numbers than you can see that Bakhmut was actually the worst sector for Russians, because for the sake of just "staying in this area" it makes literally no difference whether you stay inside Bakhmut or 7km more to the East, because this is their pathetic "progress" in almost 10 months. It is however a complete difference when you have those 100,000 men and millions of artillery shells at your disposal. Even some Russians are starting to realize this.

You do not have to take my word, the developments in battlefield will say this in the clearest language. History is full of examples where political lunatics forced their military leaders into steps which any sane military commander would never have done. The terms "pyrrhic victory, second Stalingrad etc." have been used more than once. Maybe we will even add "Bakhmut victory" to the books. It certainly deserves a place in military idiocy.

 
In all honesty, I have covered many wars in several decades and I can say that I haven't seen in a long time a more hysteric way to declare "victory" as we see now around Bakhmut. And I'm not even into the semantics whether Russians hold 95%, 98% or 100%. The very fact that they phrase it that way is hilarious in its own.

As I have mentioned already few days ago, Russians do not intend to move any further, or more precisely, they are not capable to move any further, which simply begs the question what was this all about. What strategic value offers Bakhmut in itself? The answer is simple. None. This fact was even stated by Prigozhin, Strelkov and others. It is a military travesty, aiming only for political games of the involved Russian warlords.

The Ukrainian strategy on the other side has been coherent and quite clear. First, to deny Russians entry to Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, secondly, bind Russian forces and prepare for their counteroffensive and, third, in the process decimating their ranks, which - when reflecting 100,000 Russian casualties - they have achieved with flying colors. The only threat was a potential encirclement of Bakhmut with the subsequent destruction of the Ukrainian armies in it, but that was averted and Russians were forced to run against the heaviest fortification, a stupidity in itself and exactly how Ukrainian strategist can ask for.

Ukrainians have even achieved additional tactical advantages by binding additional Russian forces in Bakhmut. Russians were so obsessed with Bakhmut that they were depleting lines and more importantly ammunition in Kreminna, Svatove, Avdiivka and Vuhledar. Literally every single one of those named areas ended in total disasters. Especially, Vuhledar can be called an epic fail.

However, when you look at the numbers than you can see that Bakhmut was actually the worst sector for Russians, because for the sake of just "staying in this area" it makes literally no difference whether you stay inside Bakhmut or 7km more to the East, because this is their pathetic "progress" in almost 10 months. It is however a complete difference when you have those 100,000 men and millions of artillery shells at your disposal. Even some Russians are starting to realize this.

You do not have to take my word, the developments in battlefield will say this in the clearest language. History is full of examples where political lunatics forced their military leaders into steps which any sane military commander would never have done. The terms "pyrrhic victory, second Stalingrad etc." have been used more than once. Maybe we will even add "Bakhmut victory" to the books. It certainly deserves a place in military idiocy.

Loving the ‘Bakhmut victory’ part. Hopefully we can apply that to United on the evening of 3rd June if they manage to keep the scoreline respectable.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.