4 ms·

If Ukraine had ceded Bakhmut, they'd have to retake it at some point. Taking ground is harder than holding it, especially against a prepared defense. Which we'r

If Ukraine had ceded Bakhmut, they'd have to retake it at some point. Taking ground is harder than holding it, especially against a prepared defense. Which we're seeing in the ongoing counteroffensive. I don't see you proposing an alternative to what the Ukrainians have chosen to do that doesn't leave them with a lot more territory to retake, or ceding a bunch of territory to Russia on a basically permanent basis. And let's not forget that they're doing their damnedest to attrit Russian materiel all the while they've been fighting to hold or retake territory. Every weapon system they've been given to strike behind Russian lines and destroy materiel, they've used for that purpose. That both reduces Russia's availability materiel, and screws with their logistics by pushing back their various assets and supply depots.

pydry 3y ago
If the goal was to keep territory they'd have been better off taking Russia's pre-war deal - minsk 2, cede Crimea, pledge to stay out of NATO. Even after that though, I think they should have prioritized lives over territory. Luring Russia deeper into their territory so that their supply lines could be cut and trying to fight maneuver warfare would have worked better than trying to win a WW1 style war of attrition against an enemy 5x the power and equivalent sophistication that is fighting a war of attrition against you. Russian logistics were only really seriously threatened by HIMARS and only then for a short period (theyve since deployed counter measures). Ukraine only really has the resources to hit propaganda targets behind enemy lines now - Russian logistics are not being threatened in any meaningful way any more.
- polotics 3y ago
  I would seriously challenge your "equivalent sophistication" statement. The human resources management of Russia's army is below WW2 Soviet's abysmal standard. The russian population is starting to notice.
  - pydry 3y ago
    According to some western sources, yes, but many of these same sources have also made false reports on everything from Russian ammo shortages, missile shortages to total economic collapse before rolling back on them so I wouldn't necessarily put too much faith in them. I would calibrate the predictions you see from your sources with the predictions that they made 12 months ago. The results may surprise. There are several technological areas where Russia is obviously ahead of the west - the two most notable being anti aircraft defences (S-400) and hypersonic missiles.
    - polotics 3y ago
      Ok we have very different sources... :+) Mine don't do predictions.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Russian sources complain about ammo shortage on a daily basis. The Russian economy is struggling but not collapsing yet. The hypersonic missiles have generally failed to beat western air defenses. The S 400s have been getting blown up with visual confirmation.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > If the goal was to keep territory they'd have been better off taking Russia's pre-war deal - minsk 2, cede Crimea, pledge to stay out of NATO. I’m curious about how this new deal would have actually stopped Russia from just invading again in the future to take more land. Ukraine already had prior to 2014 multiple international agreements with Russia where they promised to respect Ukraines borders and sovereignty and that didn’t stop Russia violating them. In fact this deal seems to be explicitly about allowing Russia to invade again by pledging them to stay out of defensive alliances that would finally stop and prevent Russian aggression. > Ukraine only really has the resources to hit propaganda targets behind enemy lines now Ukraine has destroyed one of the submarines that Russia was using to launch cruise missiles at them and has leveled the Black Sea headquarters effectively. They are doing what Russia keeps claiming and failing to do (hitting decision making centres).

pydry 3y ago

If the goal was to keep territory they'd have been better off taking Russia's pre-war deal - minsk 2, cede Crimea, pledge to stay out of NATO. Even after that though, I think they should have prioritized lives over territory. Luring Russia deeper into their territory so that their supply lines could be cut and trying to fight maneuver warfare would have worked better than trying to win a WW1 style war of attrition against an enemy 5x the power and equivalent sophistication that is fighting a war of attrition against you. Russian logistics were only really seriously threatened by HIMARS and only then for a short period (theyve since deployed counter measures). Ukraine only really has the resources to hit propaganda targets behind enemy lines now - Russian logistics are not being threatened in any meaningful way any more.

polotics 3y ago
I would seriously challenge your "equivalent sophistication" statement. The human resources management of Russia's army is below WW2 Soviet's abysmal standard. The russian population is starting to notice.
- pydry 3y ago
  According to some western sources, yes, but many of these same sources have also made false reports on everything from Russian ammo shortages, missile shortages to total economic collapse before rolling back on them so I wouldn't necessarily put too much faith in them. I would calibrate the predictions you see from your sources with the predictions that they made 12 months ago. The results may surprise. There are several technological areas where Russia is obviously ahead of the west - the two most notable being anti aircraft defences (S-400) and hypersonic missiles.
  - polotics 3y ago
    Ok we have very different sources... :+) Mine don't do predictions.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Russian sources complain about ammo shortage on a daily basis. The Russian economy is struggling but not collapsing yet. The hypersonic missiles have generally failed to beat western air defenses. The S 400s have been getting blown up with visual confirmation.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> If the goal was to keep territory they'd have been better off taking Russia's pre-war deal - minsk 2, cede Crimea, pledge to stay out of NATO. I’m curious about how this new deal would have actually stopped Russia from just invading again in the future to take more land. Ukraine already had prior to 2014 multiple international agreements with Russia where they promised to respect Ukraines borders and sovereignty and that didn’t stop Russia violating them. In fact this deal seems to be explicitly about allowing Russia to invade again by pledging them to stay out of defensive alliances that would finally stop and prevent Russian aggression. > Ukraine only really has the resources to hit propaganda targets behind enemy lines now Ukraine has destroyed one of the submarines that Russia was using to launch cruise missiles at them and has leveled the Black Sea headquarters effectively. They are doing what Russia keeps claiming and failing to do (hitting decision making centres).