Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ReverseCarry t1_jadiv5l wrote

Reply to comment by OppenheimersGuilt in Ukraine war: Zelensky says situation in Bakhmut worsening by jacobhong

The people claiming it is totally unimportant are wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct to outsize the strategic importance in the opposite direction either. Because ironically enough, that is also a form of damage control.

Capturing Bakhmut is not akin to capturing Volnovakha. It will not lead to immediate control of Kramatorsk or Slovyansk. It’s best outcome besides opening up the highways is putting those towns in artillery range. Even with those highways, the Russians still have to pass through the smaller towns like Chasiv Yar along the way. It will not be a cakewalk just to get to Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, much less actually take them. It’s better than not having those highways, but the total manpower lost, materiel spent, and political friction generated were not worth a foothold that small.

A victory in Bakhmut might bring home a symbolic win, but strategically its downright Pyrrhic at this point. The manpower and materiel (especially the artillery), would have both been put to better use to reinforce defenses for the upcoming Ukrainian offensives, or in reserve for the pushes in Kreminna.

4

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jae4pm3 wrote

Why would Ukraine, who is getting to the point of mobilizing old men, women and students invest so much manpower in the Bakhmut "meat grinder" if it weren't important?

Either they're strategically insanely bad, or it was worth throwing all that people in.

2

shockage t1_jaegnw6 wrote

Because it:

  • buys time
  • causes attrition to both sides, but that attrition has a bigger effect on Russians long term due to logistics, domestic politics, and morale.

The MO prior to the counter offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson was to just bleed the Russians dry and survive long enough to exhaust the Russian ambitions for Kiev and the whole country.

3