5 ms·

Wagner’s Prigozhin Warns He’s Ready to Withdraw from Bakhmut

20 points by DocFeind 3y ago

gerikson 3y ago
[flagged]
ummonk 3y ago
He did a similar complaint a few months back too. Seems to have a knack for getting around red tape / corruption by going public.
tonyedgecombe 3y ago
He should be careful, he might find himself hurtling towards the pavement soon.
blinding-streak 3y ago
https://archive.ph/nnEIn https://archive.ph/nnEIn
throwaway4good 3y ago
I thought the Russians controlled most of Bakhmut now? I don’t understands it’s value though. The city is completely destroyed as far as I can see from all the videos that are coming out from there.
- nradov 3y ago
  At this point the value is mostly just symbolic. Russians control most of Bakhmut now but Ukrainians still hold a small piece. At the beginning of the war it had some value as a logistics hub but everything of value was destroyed months ago.
- NicoJuicy 3y ago
  The value of Bakhmut is that it is/was defensible and the Russian losses topped Ukraine losses. There is talk about a 9-1 ratio, but i think a 5-1 ratio to be more real. Ukraine seems quick to retreat when those ratios are not favorable. Ofc, this is guessing. There could be more to it, eg. Russians could advance faster if Bakhmut is conquered. Additionally, it's more useful to fend off the invaders in an already destroyed city instead of letting them advance to another ( probably inhabited and more intact) city.
- frereubu 3y ago
  The Ukrainians are inflicting heavy losses on the Russian side (including Wagner mercenaries) without taking losses that are nearly as heavy. The Russian side are just throwing lots of soldiers and machinery into badly-placed offenses so they’re playing into the Ukrainians’ hands as the Ukrainians continue to degrade their army. The crucial difference is that the Ukrainians, alongside being much more motivated, are being much, much smarter in terms of logistics. If you’re interested in this kind of thing I highly recommend following Phillips O’Brien on Twitter, who’s a professor of strategic studies at St Andrews university and has been calling things very well since the beginning of the war: https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien
  - deepthunder 3y ago
    Phillips O'Brien? He claims on Twitter Russia is the most likely candidate for blowing up the Nordstream pipeline. He's just a "Security services stenographer".
    - frereubu 3y ago
      Who caused that is still an open question that no-one really has the answer to, so I'm not sure why you're so confident. One of the things that makes me trust O'Brien over others is that he generally admits when he's been wrong and openly reviews his past views in light of new evidence.
  - arvigeus 3y ago
    > The Ukrainians are inflicting heavy losses on the Russian side (including Wagner mercenaries) without taking losses that are nearly as heavy. Have in mind that 1) These numbers are unreliable (although most likely in Ukrainian’s favour) 2) Numbers are not equal: 10 poorly trained Russian soldiers are not comparable to 1 elite Ukrainian sniper
    - frereubu 3y ago
      Both true, but that doesn't mean the central point isn't correct, particularly when it comes to materiel.
- ummonk 3y ago
  For the Ukrainians, it's a place to stall and bleed out Russian offensive capability while the Ukrainians their western-trained forces and equipment for the offensive they're planning. For the Russians, it's a place to achieve concentration of force and use artillery to attrit large numbers of Ukrainian troops, as well as a chance to break Ukrainian defensive lines and capture a major logistical hub - opening the way to advance on Slovyansk-Kramatorsk.
NicoJuicy 3y ago
I think he just wants to focus back on Africa since he's deemed a criminal organization since end of January. The Ukraine war won't last, there's a counter offensive supposedly in the making and he doesn't want to lose face too much. If the counter offensive is successful, he could claim it was because he wasn't there. And it wouldn't have happened if he had received the resources he wanted. He is just waiting to retreat before the counter offensive actually starts. What seems to be significant is the short timeline ( days not weeks). He knows that won't be possible + in a video of him, he mentioned he didn't send the letter "yet", which is counter intuitive according the claimed urgency.
- NicoJuicy 3y ago
  It's still an unwritten story. There seems to be suggestions that Wagner received ammo: https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1652747002013163529?t=ZAmvZUTssbdJqlKyJBsbyQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1652747002013163529?t=... If that's true, he's indeed just looking for an excuse to leave.
ufo 3y ago
I wouldn't take that headline at face value. Prigozhin periodically releases these statements complaining about lack of ammunition, resources, etc. It's a way to jockey for influence and increase political capital. Next week he'll be back to gloating about Wagner group accomplishments and the cycle will continue.
0zemp2c 3y ago
this is starting to look like a (practically) forever war both sides seem committed to impossible goals - Russia wants to occupy everything up to the Polish border, Zelensky wants Russia completely pushed back even out of Crimea both goals seem unrealistic, and both leaders will probably be replaced by new leadership with an even more zealous commitment to the conflict on some level I feel like the US administration is fine with this...on the most cynical level, a smashed Europe helps preserve US status militarily and economically
- gerikson 3y ago
  Ukraine liberating Crimea, while a stretch goal, is more likely than Russia defeating Ukraine.
  - webmaven 3y ago
    Russia conquering Ukraine is now highly unlikely, but defeating Ukraine (essentially by obliterating it) remains very much within Russia's capabilities, unfortunately. Whether Putin could see such a Pyrrhic victory as his least-bad option under some set of circumstances — and settle for it — is unknown, but the signs aren't particularly good.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Russia no longer has sufficient conventional forces to defeat Ukraine. They just don't have the manpower. The only way they could do it is with nuclear weapons, and it still seems unlikely that Putin would escalate to that extent.
      - xpl 3y ago
        Russia has large airpower equipped with heavy guided bombs (think JDAMs), which it only has started to use seriously due to the depletion of UA's long-range anti-air defenses (old Soviet S300 systems). The problem is that Western long-range AA systems are exorbitantly expensive (~$1 bln for a Patriot system), take very long time to produce, and the West simply doesn't have it in quantities that could replace the rapidly depleting Soviet systems. Also, those expensive AA missiles get quickly attrited by cheap Iranian drones. This is because the Western doctrine has always been about gaining air supremacy via airforce (fighter jets + AWACS + long-range air-to-air missiles complex), which UA doesn't have, and the US seems to be reluctant to supply Ukraine with all that — as they publicly say in the fear of escalation, but more likely due to the price tag. So if that stance doesn't change, Russia would start bombing UA with heavy 1500kg+ munitions all over the place (inflicting very serious damage), and there is really not much UA could do with that, unfortunately.
paradox242 3y ago
I am not understanding how this is any different than similar complaints from the last few months. Also, any public utterances by someone as high-up as Prigozhin is not based on logistical, but rather political considerations. To really understand what it means would require much more insight than I have into the all of the players and the current power dynamics between them.
BenoitP 3y ago
To be taken with a grain of salt: this guy has one of the most active troll farm. He knows what he's doing.

20 points by DocFeind 3y ago

[flagged]

He did a similar complaint a few months back too. Seems to have a knack for getting around red tape / corruption by going public.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago

He should be careful, he might find himself hurtling towards the pavement soon.

blinding-streak 3y ago

https://archive.ph/nnEIn https://archive.ph/nnEIn

throwaway4good 3y ago

I thought the Russians controlled most of Bakhmut now? I don’t understands it’s value though. The city is completely destroyed as far as I can see from all the videos that are coming out from there.

nradov 3y ago
At this point the value is mostly just symbolic. Russians control most of Bakhmut now but Ukrainians still hold a small piece. At the beginning of the war it had some value as a logistics hub but everything of value was destroyed months ago.
NicoJuicy 3y ago
The value of Bakhmut is that it is/was defensible and the Russian losses topped Ukraine losses. There is talk about a 9-1 ratio, but i think a 5-1 ratio to be more real. Ukraine seems quick to retreat when those ratios are not favorable. Ofc, this is guessing. There could be more to it, eg. Russians could advance faster if Bakhmut is conquered. Additionally, it's more useful to fend off the invaders in an already destroyed city instead of letting them advance to another ( probably inhabited and more intact) city.
frereubu 3y ago
The Ukrainians are inflicting heavy losses on the Russian side (including Wagner mercenaries) without taking losses that are nearly as heavy. The Russian side are just throwing lots of soldiers and machinery into badly-placed offenses so they’re playing into the Ukrainians’ hands as the Ukrainians continue to degrade their army. The crucial difference is that the Ukrainians, alongside being much more motivated, are being much, much smarter in terms of logistics. If you’re interested in this kind of thing I highly recommend following Phillips O’Brien on Twitter, who’s a professor of strategic studies at St Andrews university and has been calling things very well since the beginning of the war: https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien
- deepthunder 3y ago
  Phillips O'Brien? He claims on Twitter Russia is the most likely candidate for blowing up the Nordstream pipeline. He's just a "Security services stenographer".
  - frereubu 3y ago
    Who caused that is still an open question that no-one really has the answer to, so I'm not sure why you're so confident. One of the things that makes me trust O'Brien over others is that he generally admits when he's been wrong and openly reviews his past views in light of new evidence.
- arvigeus 3y ago
  > The Ukrainians are inflicting heavy losses on the Russian side (including Wagner mercenaries) without taking losses that are nearly as heavy. Have in mind that 1) These numbers are unreliable (although most likely in Ukrainian’s favour) 2) Numbers are not equal: 10 poorly trained Russian soldiers are not comparable to 1 elite Ukrainian sniper
  - frereubu 3y ago
    Both true, but that doesn't mean the central point isn't correct, particularly when it comes to materiel.
ummonk 3y ago
For the Ukrainians, it's a place to stall and bleed out Russian offensive capability while the Ukrainians their western-trained forces and equipment for the offensive they're planning. For the Russians, it's a place to achieve concentration of force and use artillery to attrit large numbers of Ukrainian troops, as well as a chance to break Ukrainian defensive lines and capture a major logistical hub - opening the way to advance on Slovyansk-Kramatorsk.

NicoJuicy 3y ago

I think he just wants to focus back on Africa since he's deemed a criminal organization since end of January. The Ukraine war won't last, there's a counter offensive supposedly in the making and he doesn't want to lose face too much. If the counter offensive is successful, he could claim it was because he wasn't there. And it wouldn't have happened if he had received the resources he wanted. He is just waiting to retreat before the counter offensive actually starts. What seems to be significant is the short timeline ( days not weeks). He knows that won't be possible + in a video of him, he mentioned he didn't send the letter "yet", which is counter intuitive according the claimed urgency.

NicoJuicy 3y ago
It's still an unwritten story. There seems to be suggestions that Wagner received ammo: https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1652747002013163529?t=ZAmvZUTssbdJqlKyJBsbyQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1652747002013163529?t=... If that's true, he's indeed just looking for an excuse to leave.

ufo 3y ago

I wouldn't take that headline at face value. Prigozhin periodically releases these statements complaining about lack of ammunition, resources, etc. It's a way to jockey for influence and increase political capital. Next week he'll be back to gloating about Wagner group accomplishments and the cycle will continue.

0zemp2c 3y ago

this is starting to look like a (practically) forever war both sides seem committed to impossible goals - Russia wants to occupy everything up to the Polish border, Zelensky wants Russia completely pushed back even out of Crimea both goals seem unrealistic, and both leaders will probably be replaced by new leadership with an even more zealous commitment to the conflict on some level I feel like the US administration is fine with this...on the most cynical level, a smashed Europe helps preserve US status militarily and economically

gerikson 3y ago
Ukraine liberating Crimea, while a stretch goal, is more likely than Russia defeating Ukraine.
- webmaven 3y ago
  Russia conquering Ukraine is now highly unlikely, but defeating Ukraine (essentially by obliterating it) remains very much within Russia's capabilities, unfortunately. Whether Putin could see such a Pyrrhic victory as his least-bad option under some set of circumstances — and settle for it — is unknown, but the signs aren't particularly good.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Russia no longer has sufficient conventional forces to defeat Ukraine. They just don't have the manpower. The only way they could do it is with nuclear weapons, and it still seems unlikely that Putin would escalate to that extent.
    - xpl 3y ago
      Russia has large airpower equipped with heavy guided bombs (think JDAMs), which it only has started to use seriously due to the depletion of UA's long-range anti-air defenses (old Soviet S300 systems). The problem is that Western long-range AA systems are exorbitantly expensive (~$1 bln for a Patriot system), take very long time to produce, and the West simply doesn't have it in quantities that could replace the rapidly depleting Soviet systems. Also, those expensive AA missiles get quickly attrited by cheap Iranian drones. This is because the Western doctrine has always been about gaining air supremacy via airforce (fighter jets + AWACS + long-range air-to-air missiles complex), which UA doesn't have, and the US seems to be reluctant to supply Ukraine with all that — as they publicly say in the fear of escalation, but more likely due to the price tag. So if that stance doesn't change, Russia would start bombing UA with heavy 1500kg+ munitions all over the place (inflicting very serious damage), and there is really not much UA could do with that, unfortunately.

paradox242 3y ago

I am not understanding how this is any different than similar complaints from the last few months. Also, any public utterances by someone as high-up as Prigozhin is not based on logistical, but rather political considerations. To really understand what it means would require much more insight than I have into the all of the players and the current power dynamics between them.

BenoitP 3y ago

To be taken with a grain of salt: this guy has one of the most active troll farm. He knows what he's doing.