Stalemate, Setup, or Counter-Counterattack? The Weird Winter of the Russia-Ukraine War

The fight is to kill Russians!

AND liberate Mariople…

Russia's in deep shit

It's Prigozhin being promised control of those saltmines that has led to the situation in Bakhmut. That's his prize for allowing Putin to use Wagner in the invasion. So, as of right now with Prigozhin urging Zelensky to withdraw from Bakhmut, I don't think a russian take-over will lead to any more immediate advances by Russia except maybe for cutting of Ukrainian north/south supplylines running along M20.

In the longer run, during the spring when all the mobilized units are trained and staged, I think Bakhmut on Russian hands makes it more likely than optherwise that we'll see a Russian push for Dnipro and Zaporizjzja to link their lines to the Dnjpr river so they have their entire western flank protected by it.

If you want to put money on it, bet on the Ukrainians, not the Putlerites.

you are not a tactician are you … Ukraine is not attacking they are defending .. try to make another video with more facts in it and scrap this one

Considering everything we have witnessed since all this started more then a year ago, I still believe the one reason that explains most odd decisions, actions, developments is that 1. Putin isn‘t fully aware of how bad the Russian military is in every regard (training, equipment, etc.), and 2. that this said state is truly tragic. Corruption can have such an effect.

In other words, Russia would act differently if only they could. But they can’t. And no amount of new recruits will change that if those recruits have no uniforms, guns, tanks, officers, training, what have you.

The Russian leadership thought they could just march into Ukraine, and that’s it. Spoils. That didn’t work out. Now they are screwed, so to speak, and in a nutshell.

Excellent videos, by the way – most excellent!

Ukraine is pretty dead on in accounts of Russian losses investigative journalists and 5 eyes intelligence reports and U.S and U.K military intelligence generally confirm Ukrainian counts on Russian losses although not 100% accurate because they can't be but in the ballpark even though Ukraine never mentions their losses it is estimated 1 Ukrainian for every 5 Russians except in Bakhmut the ratio is more like 9 Russians for every Ukrainian because Russia sends wave after wave of conscripts to their deaths, the videos are astounding. Also Ukraine is counter attacking in Bakhmut now at Russian regulars on one side and Wagner on the other and Wagner's leader is sounding the alarm that if the Russian defence ministry doesn't act all gains will be lost and his spokesmans pass to the ministry was revoked and he was banned from it trying to deliver a message from Wagner's leader to the Generals. Which is all great for Ukraine, all the infighting is a weakness Ukraine exploits well

The problem for ukraine is man power being extremely lower than russia's so they need to hit hard and fast before the numbers r too much to overcome

Excellence analization.

I just don't believe Ukraine would be holding Bakhmut if they weren't getting the casualty ratios they needed. They've got strong options for withdrawal but if they feel they can bleed Russia faster here than in the next location, why not bleed Russia here? Why's Russia attacking? I honestly don't know. I don't find any of the explanations that palatable or logical for the resources invested which makes me suspect that the real explanation is neither.

Insert curb your enthusiasm music here lolol

Fn beautiful math!
Love it!

ATTENTION RUSSIA / PUTIN, UKRAINIAN TROOPS COULD BE HIDDING UNDER GROUNDS, IN MANY PARTS OF BHAMUT AND SURROUDING. AREAS ! WAITING TO EMERGE AND COUNTER ATTACKS BEHIND RUSSIAN TROOPS !!! CLOSED OR SEALS ALL TUNNELS IF EVER DISCOVERED ! BEST IS TO BLOW UP ALL TUNNELS ! MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ALL UKRANIAN TROOPS TO SURRENDER ,WITH A TIME-LINE !

I think the Russian Army views Bakhmut as a symbolic victory. They need something to brag about to the Russian people. It is a small city with little strategic significance, but Russia viewed it as an opportunity to win somewhere. The Russians fight wars of attrition, and are willing to let 100,000 men die to take a city of 50,000. The battle is here because Bakhmut is the prime objective of the Russian army. Apparently, they can't fight effectively across the entire front, which is hundreds of kilometers long, so they focus on an insignificant city. At some point, Ukraine will redirect their forces, and the glorious Russian Army will take a small city of no significance, but, for now, Ukraine must continue to fight where the Russians want to fight.

RUSSIA IS OUT OF AMMOW- THE MEN SHOULD ENTER RUSIAN NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Very interesting analysis. Since you asked for opinions, I will give you mine, with the benefit of an additional month's worth of information since you wrote your piece. I am firmly in the "fairly good news for Ukraine camp", believing that the strategy is one of disproportionate attrition in favour of Ukraine. If Ukraine is getting 5:1 Russian casualties vs Ukrainian, then that is a good ROI. Pursue that strategy as long as it pays those dividends. And this appears to have been true.

The other pay-off is the total focus on this Bakhmut instead of a dozen other initiatives is a good thing. Over the past 4 months it has been beneficial to essentially cause a stalemate, assuming Ukraine will soon be able to launch new offensives with the tanks and other equipment it will be receiving.

Oh, and the third pay-off is the discord being sown between Wagner and the Russian Army HQ.

My only concern about the current situation in Bakhmut is the extent to which this has become a symbolic battle, which might distort Ukraine's perception of how to fight this battle. If Ukraine maintains a cold-blooded analysis of the cost-benefit of keeping the battle going (which means minimum 3:1 advantage, and ideally at least 5:1) plus stalling any new offensives until they are ready, then it's a good decision. But if Ukraine gets romantic and decides to "fight to the last man" and keep pouring resources into that battle, regardless of cost, then that is foolish. I fear that we might already be in that realm.

But whatever PR victory comes to whichever side, it will pale in consequence to the first big moves of the spring, when the tanks roll in. Once that happens, no one will care what happens in Bakhmut.

The mention of 3 to 1 ratio seems to apply to head on tactical assaults, not strategic offensives, imo. When Germany invaded France in 1941, the combined Allied armies had approximately the same number of troops, twice as many tanks, and almost twice as much artillery as Germany had. Germany had more in the air theatre, but after transports and gliders are subtracted, only about a 4-3 superiority. Also, the tanks that Germany was using did not have the combat superiority they enjoyed later in the war; they were relatively under gunned vs the allied tanks they faced at that time. Mobile tactics attempt to avoid using your forehead to break through a brick wall; going around the wall or through a door causes less headaches.

Stalemates and quagmires lead to THE EVERYONE LOSES scenario. If that happens American support will wane, get out of bahkmut youre starting to lose support

Fin da guerradroni cremipaz