8 ms·

I suspect it will be within full Ukrainian control within less than a year. It’s not a strategic priority. And it is costly to try and take inch by inch. So Ukr

I suspect it will be within full Ukrainian control within less than a year. It’s not a strategic priority. And it is costly to try and take inch by inch. So Ukraine is not going to be in any rush to take it back. But I also expect the priorities for Russian troops will be stretched extremely thin. Wagner appears eager to leave and blame the Russian MoD for failing to hold it. The news today of Russian freedom fighters “liberating” a Russian settlement around Belgorod is the most interesting thing to happen in a while. Keep an eye on that one.

api 3y ago
I've read that the whole strategy was to use it to bleed Russia.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Kind of the same idea the USSR applied during the defence of Stalingrad.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    Ironically enough.
  - Someone 3y ago
    I think that was different. Both Hitler and Stalin were emotionally obsessed with the idea of controlling Stalingrad at all cost and didn’t think rationally about it. The argument here is that Russia is in the same boat, but Ukraine is acting rational and think this is the place where they have the best odds at winning the war. The ratio of “their losses” versus “our losses” is better for them than they can get elsewhere, and at the rate of progress Russia made, they won’t run out of land soon. Of course, whether they’re right isn’t 100% certain. From what I read, Russia is losing relatively more inexperienced soldiers than Ukraine, and those are relatively easy to replace.
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  Yep. They’ve been very transparent about it.
- wsc981 3y ago
  How many more young men does Ukraine have to expend in this war?
  - realPubkey 3y ago
    About 800000
    - TheFreim 3y ago
      Where did you get this number?
    - golergka 3y ago
      This is the right answer, shouldn't be downvoted. It's about the estimations I've seen in various sources.
      - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        It should be downvoted because no reference was given. People need to be very cautious of accepting unsourced figures and facts.
        jscipione 3y ago
        [flagged]
rainworld 3y ago
And it is costly to try and take inch by inch. They lost it inch by inch and paid a very high price. Why do you think they sent some of their best units there, like the “Da Vinci Wolves“, and lost good chunks of them, including, incidentally, said unit’s founder and national hero “Da Vinci“? This is not a secret, the obituaries are all public.
- Gud 3y ago
  Makes a lot of sense to me. So the Ukrainians took heavy losses. For the Russians it was much worse. The Ukrainians has managed to build up an enormous defense around the city and the Russian offense has been effectively halted, and for what? So they can rule the ruins of Bakhmut, for a little while? The Ukrainians will push back now. My bet is they will encircle what's left of Bakhmut, forcing the Russians to surrender the city(or whats left of it).
  - rainworld 3y ago
    For the Russians it was much worse. A claim that is repeated ad nauseam, but entirely without evidence. Reminder: At the beginning of the year the BBC had a count of 20k. You can double or triple that if you like but it’s never going to be close to what (pro-)Ukrainians claim. Also: The number of Wagner fighters gets way exaggerated. They were at a numerical disadvantage till the end. managed to build up an enormous defense around the city That’s not how it works. They spent years turning Bakhmut into a giant fortress city. (They even wrote that stupid song about it.) They fought tooth and nails over it. They rotated dozens of brigades through it, an untold number of men. But it just was not enough. This is not their last shot at a defense in the region, but it was their best. offense has been effectively halted What offense? Only major Russian operation so far this year was Bakhmut. They are not in a rush. So they can rule the ruins of Bakhmut, for a little while? Couple months ago, per Zelensky, Bakhmut was strategically vital and not to be lost. Let me guess, a ruse? “Dumb orcs hehe” The Ukrainians will push back now. Oh, they will almost inevitably do something, somewhere. But the fact that they managed to retake a lightly-defended area that one time gives people all kinds of crazy ideas. Sure, they will probably manage an advance somewhere (at great cost, of course), get stuck after a couple days … and then what? Think Putler’s just going to nope out of the war because Twitter NAFOids are in ecstasy? My bet is they will encircle what's left of Bakhmut How? With what units? Not only did they send their best units to Bakhmut, they had to send some of their fresh, Western-trained ones too. Which were under strength in the first place.
netbioserror 3y ago
This sounds like outright coping. As far as I can tell (having paid next to no attention to this conflict), the media got the entire invested US population hyped up about some Ukrainian counter-offensive, retaking Bakhmut, Russian army out of ammo...and this is the result? Spinning the loss of the city while realizing the aftermath was near as makes no difference a human woodchipper? I really hope we have an Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon, because far too many people are up to their chins in moral hazard by walking straight into the fog of war equipped with only talking-head propaganda and Hollywood-informed notions of how and why wars are fought.
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  If it would convince you otherwise, I’m happy to provide citations of third party analyses and Ukrainian defense statements stating Bakhmut had little strategic value months prior and that it was being used to pin Russian troops in a costly offensive. Edit: the Russia being out of ammo thing was an internal politics thing of Prigozhin claiming Russia MoD was not supplying Wagner with enough ammo. It was not a western talking point. Nor was it particularly true.
  - netbioserror 3y ago
    I'm happy to distrust every source you'll try to cite, and wait 10 years until this is both over and we obtain enough document leaks that we can more closely approximate the truth than we could using anything available now.
    - fauxpause_ 3y ago
      The truth of third party analysis?
    - pjc50 3y ago
      > I'm happy to distrust every source you'll try to cite This, not AI, is why debate is becoming increasingly worthless.
    - archagon 3y ago

api 3y ago

I've read that the whole strategy was to use it to bleed Russia.

hef19898 3y ago
Kind of the same idea the USSR applied during the defence of Stalingrad.
- lisasays 3y ago
  Ironically enough.
- Someone 3y ago
  I think that was different. Both Hitler and Stalin were emotionally obsessed with the idea of controlling Stalingrad at all cost and didn’t think rationally about it. The argument here is that Russia is in the same boat, but Ukraine is acting rational and think this is the place where they have the best odds at winning the war. The ratio of “their losses” versus “our losses” is better for them than they can get elsewhere, and at the rate of progress Russia made, they won’t run out of land soon. Of course, whether they’re right isn’t 100% certain. From what I read, Russia is losing relatively more inexperienced soldiers than Ukraine, and those are relatively easy to replace.
fauxpause_ 3y ago
Yep. They’ve been very transparent about it.
wsc981 3y ago
How many more young men does Ukraine have to expend in this war?
- realPubkey 3y ago
  About 800000
  - TheFreim 3y ago
    Where did you get this number?
  - golergka 3y ago
    This is the right answer, shouldn't be downvoted. It's about the estimations I've seen in various sources.
    - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      It should be downvoted because no reference was given. People need to be very cautious of accepting unsourced figures and facts.
      - jscipione 3y ago
        [flagged]

rainworld 3y ago

And it is costly to try and take inch by inch. They lost it inch by inch and paid a very high price. Why do you think they sent some of their best units there, like the “Da Vinci Wolves“, and lost good chunks of them, including, incidentally, said unit’s founder and national hero “Da Vinci“? This is not a secret, the obituaries are all public.

Gud 3y ago
Makes a lot of sense to me. So the Ukrainians took heavy losses. For the Russians it was much worse. The Ukrainians has managed to build up an enormous defense around the city and the Russian offense has been effectively halted, and for what? So they can rule the ruins of Bakhmut, for a little while? The Ukrainians will push back now. My bet is they will encircle what's left of Bakhmut, forcing the Russians to surrender the city(or whats left of it).
- rainworld 3y ago
  For the Russians it was much worse. A claim that is repeated ad nauseam, but entirely without evidence. Reminder: At the beginning of the year the BBC had a count of 20k. You can double or triple that if you like but it’s never going to be close to what (pro-)Ukrainians claim. Also: The number of Wagner fighters gets way exaggerated. They were at a numerical disadvantage till the end. managed to build up an enormous defense around the city That’s not how it works. They spent years turning Bakhmut into a giant fortress city. (They even wrote that stupid song about it.) They fought tooth and nails over it. They rotated dozens of brigades through it, an untold number of men. But it just was not enough. This is not their last shot at a defense in the region, but it was their best. offense has been effectively halted What offense? Only major Russian operation so far this year was Bakhmut. They are not in a rush. So they can rule the ruins of Bakhmut, for a little while? Couple months ago, per Zelensky, Bakhmut was strategically vital and not to be lost. Let me guess, a ruse? “Dumb orcs hehe” The Ukrainians will push back now. Oh, they will almost inevitably do something, somewhere. But the fact that they managed to retake a lightly-defended area that one time gives people all kinds of crazy ideas. Sure, they will probably manage an advance somewhere (at great cost, of course), get stuck after a couple days … and then what? Think Putler’s just going to nope out of the war because Twitter NAFOids are in ecstasy? My bet is they will encircle what's left of Bakhmut How? With what units? Not only did they send their best units to Bakhmut, they had to send some of their fresh, Western-trained ones too. Which were under strength in the first place.

netbioserror 3y ago

This sounds like outright coping. As far as I can tell (having paid next to no attention to this conflict), the media got the entire invested US population hyped up about some Ukrainian counter-offensive, retaking Bakhmut, Russian army out of ammo...and this is the result? Spinning the loss of the city while realizing the aftermath was near as makes no difference a human woodchipper? I really hope we have an Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon, because far too many people are up to their chins in moral hazard by walking straight into the fog of war equipped with only talking-head propaganda and Hollywood-informed notions of how and why wars are fought.

fauxpause_ 3y ago
If it would convince you otherwise, I’m happy to provide citations of third party analyses and Ukrainian defense statements stating Bakhmut had little strategic value months prior and that it was being used to pin Russian troops in a costly offensive. Edit: the Russia being out of ammo thing was an internal politics thing of Prigozhin claiming Russia MoD was not supplying Wagner with enough ammo. It was not a western talking point. Nor was it particularly true.
- netbioserror 3y ago
  I'm happy to distrust every source you'll try to cite, and wait 10 years until this is both over and we obtain enough document leaks that we can more closely approximate the truth than we could using anything available now.
  - fauxpause_ 3y ago
    The truth of third party analysis?
  - pjc50 3y ago
    > I'm happy to distrust every source you'll try to cite This, not AI, is why debate is becoming increasingly worthless.
  - archagon 3y ago