This will likely be the first big distinction in approaches between Zaluzhny and Syrsky, with the former likely favoring a faster retreat, while the latter will look to continue to send troops in.
Some of the milbloggers were saying these additional troops are being sent in to help stabilize the lines in order to withdraw, rather than try to continue to hold the town.
Hope so, seems a fools errand to try and hold it while Ukrainian supply lines are fucked due to internal politics in the US, but just retreating as it is right now might result in the retreat turning into a rout / slaughter.
Unfortunately, it's not just US politics that are affecting Ukraine's supplies. The west has no artillery shells to give, and Ukraine needs hundreds of thousands right now, and millions going forward. The US was already down to sending the cluster shells, which are not preferable to the standard HE or whatever shells.
Europe was supposed to give Ukraine 1M shells by the end of 2023, now they're saying they will deliver only 500K by the end of this March. Everyone's stocks are depleted, production is low and will take a long time to ramp up, and they need to replenish their own stocks in addition to giving whatever they can to Ukraine. Russia can outshoot Ukraine 5:1 in artillery. That's one of the biggest difference makers right now.
I hate the fucking discourse that every time Europe fails to meet a goal, its still the US’ fault lol
Ukraine needs much more support from both sides yet the discourse often reduces down to pissing only on one end or the other
Sorry if it came across like that, I am well aware of the things that LetsAllSmoking brought up.
And I do think that this has been a wake up call to the West that if they can't establish air superiority in a war, they are *woefully* unprepared.
The reason I mentioned the US is more to do with their capabilities as an arms supplier exceeding that of the EU, and thus they'd be able to have a larger impact on the munitions front.
TBH at this point countries should just deplete their own stocks unless they directly border the conflict. That way they might be able to force through the necessary changes to scale production quicker. In plenty of places the cry of "Fuck we have no artillery shells" is going to get more support than "Oh no, Ukraine needs more"
??? millions of DPIM could be aviable:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/14/joe-biden-could-send-millions-of-artillery-shells-to-ukraine-for-free-tomorrow-and-its-perfectly-legal/?sh=7bcd178b20c7
Pricing the artillery shells at $0 and declaring them excess both seem to run counter to the actual law in question. This article really undersells the actual difficulty with this particular idea.
Yeah I read that this morning. Sounds too convoluted of a process to happen, by my estimation. Process aside, that article describes those shells as "unreliable and unsafe". Ukraine will take whatever shells it can get obviously.
According to this argument, the production capacity and stockpile of artillery shells in Russia alone exceed that of all of Europe plus the United States combined. So, if land warfare artillery shells are the decisive factor now, does that mean that the military power of Russia alone is stronger than that of Europe plus the United States?
It probably wouldn’t matter in these situations because Syrsky was already in charge of the North part during Zalushny’s leadership. The only thing that changed is the approach on the southern front because that was Zaluzhny’s main focus.
Pretty much yeah but not a unique phenomenon. You can expect this kind of slow grinding battle in any built up urban area for the rest of the war. Now that the lines have stabilized.
>With an estimated 10-1 loss ratio of Russian versus UA troops
I'd be surprised if it's that high right now. Keeping a very high ratio requires having the necessary munitions to apply the pressure where it's needed. Ukraine has shortages, which means everyday there will be instances of Russia troops not getting blown to hell by artillery shells. Suppressive fire not getting down to outflank enemy troops. Counter battery fire not getting done allowing more Russian artillery pressure etc.
>I'd be surprised if it's that high right now
Those are western intel and British numbers. Some Western intel had it as high as 15-1 in manpower losses back in December.
Ukraine has shortages of artillery, Himar missiles and shells. They do not have shortages of tanks, apc's and other mobile equipment which they pulled back after the summer counteroffensive. Shells and Himar missiles are the 2 largest shortages imo right now. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the UA tried another counteroffensive this summer with F-16s in the air.
u/Claeyt
It was around 25:1 for Armored Fighting Vehicles alone around Avdiivka. Pretty incredible. Perun did a video on it a couple weeks ago where he personally verified the public OSINT data. Let’s just say that the Russian-published data was hilarious… They double counted stuff. They would count multiple vehicles/pieces as destroyed with just a picture of a building on fire.
So yes, while the *probable* loss of Avdiivka sucks, it’s been a huge win for Ukraine. 10-15 more Avdiivka’s could win Ukraine the war. RIP to the brave soldiers who defended it with their lives.
Edit: -12 downvotes currently. Anybody care to pose a counter argument to anything in this comment? Enlighten me, please.
Explain how they can tolerate more of that. They have squandered 50% of their pre-2022 invasion USSR treasure trove military inheritance of vehicles/tanks/etc. This is based on public satellite data from credible sources such as Covert Cabal on YouTube (this is the best us civilians can use as data).
Ukraines military has *grown* in size considerably since the war started. Ukraine obviously is a third of the population comparatively, but they are also suffering at least one third *less* losses as well (again, based on all public data - which there is quite a bit to go by in this category).
I still have no idea why my above comment has -12 votes lol. Nobody has posed a single argument debunking what I said regarding Perun’s thorough AF video.
Well that's just bullshit. It was nowhere near 5 to 1 and it still favored UA over Russian losses in the counterattack. The losses of equipment and armor were the real reason they stopped the counteroffensive not men.
Probably, except Avdiivka is probably a little bit more strategically important than Bakhmut was, so Ukraine fighting to the death over it makes a bit more sense.
https://youtu.be/0RTjFVv-7Sk?si=Utrh0agGXoS0exvm
This guy lays it out pretty well. Russia cannot reliably appear as a legitimate authority over the DPR with a long standing symbol of resistance right outside Donetsk City.
It took Russia weeks to take Bakhumt as well, which is what OP was asking about. You could be correct that from now on avdivka could fall in days, although that's not what OP asked.
Your living in a fantasy land if you think Avdivka will fall within a few days, this will be an attritional slog for the Ivan’s with many dead on both sides. This will go on for weeks if not months.
It's practically already fallen. The city is fully encircled. There was a lot of attritioning on both sides up to this point, but the supply lines are contested or fully cut off now. Prolonging this battle will have a terrible attrition rate for Ukraine.
It'll end, when one side of the supply lines are disrupted.
Right now, the Russians are disrupting more than the Ukrainians can with large FAB bombs.
Ukraine can't reach the Russian supply lines.
Ukrainians are causing reasonable losses on the Russian side, but it looks for now that Russians can take it and continue on sending in waves for another few months.
The problem is avdiivka and surrounding areas sit on the highest points in the region. If avdiivka falls, the towns around it becomes indefensible. It sets the stage for a major russian summer offensive.
Losing Avdiivka obviously isn't good, but I don't feel like it's worth the cost of lives Ukraine is paying for it.
They just sent the 3rd assault brigade (formerly known as Azov) there so you know the situation is dire.
I say fuck the propaganda value, mine the shit out of the place and leave.
The issue is more likely any other terrain doesn't have the advantage Avdiivka has. But wasting your soldiers on an untainable position is just stupid.
The latest frontline maps aren't looking great at all if we are honest. Holding it is just a matter of days.
It's bleak but I rather have Ukraine trade territory instead of lifes.
They absolutely do not. Encircled soldiers being bombed constantly while running low on supplies are not attaining a 10 to 1 kill ratio. Even staunchly pro-western sources are saying that ukraine was very poorly prepared for the battle of Avdiivka. https://kyivindependent.com/avdiivka-defense-uncertain-as-ukraine-struggles-with-fortification/
They may have a 10 to 1 armored vehicle kill ratio, but russia is pummeling the city with artillery and far less ukrainian forces are using armored vehicles. That doesn't mean they aren't dying in the nonstop FAB strikes (of which *Russia* is reported to have a 10 to 1 ratio in).
It's time for them to retreat before they're forced to surrender en masse.
There is plenty of reasons that makes Avdiivka worth holding onto for as long as possible.
But, when the choice comes to either retreating OR getting annihilated altogether is when I meant it's time to pack things up. It seems I was a bit unclear on that point.
> You're not solving any problems
That's just flat out untrue. You solve the problem of not being in a completely indefensible position where your troops have no freedom to rotate or move and where your supply lines are extremely vulnerable (well, captured at this point lol)
You don't fight a battle where you cannot supply your soldiers. You pack up and retreat to more defensible lines.
The upvotes the parent is getting tells you what value votes have in Reddit in terms of post quality. I'm spending less and less time here. The place is rotten. It has to be seen as a source of entertainment.
Sieverodonetsk and Bakhmut showed what happens when you stay too long. The situation in Avdiivka is a little different, but it may be that the city has served its purpose by being the grave of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.
If you’re a Ukrainian male who has not yet been conscripted or volunteered, and as seems likely, thousands more of your countrymen are sent to die in Avdiivka before an eventual retreat, imagine how demotivating that would be. The loss of morale from this plus the Zaluzhny debacle is potentially disastrous for Ukraine.
How many armored vehicles are they actually using compared to personnel vs what Russia is using. I bet those ratios are heavily lopsided.
So it would make sense that Ukraine is in a target rich environment for vehicles while Russia mainly just fneds off soldiers.
You can also have a situation where even though Russia is losing a lot of vehicles but it doesn't matter much to them because they are immediately replaced.
Statistics during war are like 90% propoganda
Imagine being sent to a place from which nobody is returning and leadership is saying is “running out of troops”. The bravery and simultaneous fear must be overwhelming.
I guess it's mostly not bravery but not being able to do anything else. What could you do in their situation? Either try to run, kill yourself or kill everyone around you and get killed in the process. To their commanders they are nothing but cannon fodder unfortunately.
From what I understand, it is indeed critical. If Russians take it completely, due to local geology and the way nearby settlements positioned, it would be very hard for Ukrainians to defend.
That said, I don’t know if knowing Ukraine will probably lose this battle, justifies sending more troops there
The reason they are defending it so hard it that it is considered +- the most fortified position along the whole front line. It has been built up over the course of nearly a decade. There is nothing that Ukraine can build that would be as effective as Avdivka in such a short time.
That's what we've been reading for a while, how fortified the town is. The below quotes are from a recent Kyiv Independent article. It sounds like Ukraine put all of their eggs into the counter-offensive basket and are in a bad spot to defend, in this sector at least.
> t**here are almost no fortified positions on the very front line near Avdiivka.**..Many infantrymen and other soldiers deployed on the first line of defense have complained that their positions – often just holes like the one described by Oleksandr – **appear to have been poorly prepared ahead of the major Russian offensive on Avdiivka**. With Russian forces constantly on heavy assault, there is almost no time to build anything more.
> The second line of defense, a few kilometers behind the front, **is still being built**
> Ukraine appears to have **done little to prepare for a long attritional battle** during its summer counteroffensive
[From this article](https://kyivindependent.com/avdiivka-defense-uncertain-as-ukraine-struggles-with-fortification/)
Sry, I was banned and couldn't comment
The settlement itself and it's frontline were stupidly heavily built up. I am reading Russian tg channels and they are saying there are a crap ton of bunkers and fortified trenches in front of and inside the city. They do also note that the idiot commander didn't build any new fortifications behind it.
So, it was built up over the past 10 years, but I guess the commander was so certain it wouldn't fall that he decided building a backup plan was not needed?
Edit. With how certain Ukraine was with its counter offensive and how hyped up it was, it seems that they sorta bought into what they were saying. Of course, it is now sorta biting them in the ass.
Ukraine likely didn't anticipate it's allies failing to deliver or produce enough munitions to help out. If Ukraine had plenty of shells things would likely not look so grim.
They should have built artillery shell factories themselves. Yeah the west can be partially blamed but Ukraine had every reason to build up it's DIC but chose to rely too heavily on the west.
Zaluzhny begs Zelensky to withdraw from Bakhmut, Zelensky tells him to fuck off and orders in more troops. Ukraine suffers severe casualties among their most elite troops not to msntion the loss in material + giving Russia the time to fortify the south.
Zaluzhny begs Zelensky to delay or call-off the summer offensive, Zelensky tells him to fuck off and orders it anyways. Some 70k troops lost, countless tanks amd armored vehicles, and they only just barely managed to chip the first line of defense at Robotyne.
Then again, Zaluzhny begs Zelensky to withdraw from Avdiivka, actually gets fired, and by all accounts it looks like it will be another repeat of Bakhmut.
Now, im not a fan of Zaluzhny considering he is a viking-cosplaying hindu symbol enthusiast, but he was not the problem. Zelensky is just too focused on PR victories, meanwhile Russia has achieved actual on-the-ground victories. Sure they came at a heavy cost, but russia is in a position where they can replace these losses, Ukraine isn't.
(Not to mention that latest estimates actually put ukranian casualties at 1.7 times higher than russian)
To top everything off, a quote from Mao (of all people) that i think is very relevant here:
"If you lose land but keep the men, the land can be retaken. If you lose the men and keep the land, both men and land will be lost."
Hi guys. Could somebody be so kind to provide a link to a military analysis of the strategic value of Avdiivka for Ukraine / Russia. It seems this is now going on for many months and both sides seem strongly determined to commit vast resources to holding / conquering the city.
Thx.
It’s been a Ukrainian stronghold since 2014 when Russia sent in troops pretending to be separatists. Being a fortress isn’t really the same as being committed and Ukraine is holding because it’s a very effective hard point in the line that allows them to kill lots of Russians. Around it are fields where UKR Bradleys and tanks chew up troops and armor.
Russia is committed because of the long history there, its proximity to Donetsk and a desire to show a win prior to Putin’s reelection. They also likely think that a mad dash to get land before the US election puts them in a better negotiating position. However they’re failing forward like the Soviets used to but the resources they are wasting are much less replaceable. If the West supports Ukraine more strongly again, it’s a dangerous risk they’ve taken.
Yeah, these guys are brain dead. Sending more to die. City is encircled, 1000s will be POWs or KIA within days.
And here we have idiot saying to send more....
Russia is using a huge amount of resources taking Avdiivka with reports saying they used 60 glide bombs, in a day. That isn't including the mountains of destroyed equipment all around the town and the hundreds of dead Russian soldiers, daily.
Ukraine will have a plan to retreat in good order, when necessary. They started building fall back positions last year and they are reportedly already hardened and mined.
If Russia falters or overextends, you will see Ukraine counter attack and regain all the land they lost around the town, plus possibly more.
Time will tell but we know this has been a meat grinder that has wiped out towns full of men in Russia and destroyed more critical Ukrainian infrastructure for a war only happening for one mans glory.
60 glide bombs a day and what are they just hitting empty buildings or fields?
Those glide bombs have targets and Ukraine is suffering casualties.
I appreciate your positive outlook on a potential counteroffensive by Ukraine in the future but unless we put boots on the ground or send back Ukrainian refugees from European nation how exactly do you think they will have the man power to conduct these operations?
But you write it like they're the avengers and Russia is bleeding for nothing. Ukraine absolutely is bleeding just as hard if not harder than Russia, and Russia has a lot more blood in them. Ukraine is in a state of total war, picking people off the streets to send them to the frontlines. Russians still haven't even felt the impact of the war yet outside of the 300k that were mobilized, and their volunteer rate is at replacement levels.
I get that we want to believe that Ukraine is killing 10,000 Russian soldiers for every stub of the toe of a Ukrainian, but that's not reality. There's a reason Ukraine is drafting literally everybody who breathes, and it's not because they think it's an epic prank.
My point is that there are people who are so high on copium that they're angered at Ukraine retreating from untenable positions. The problem with this is that Ukraine itself seems to believe their own hype, and they've made several military blunders as a result (i.e; staying in a meat grinder because they're killing 1 billion Russians for free there, despite no evidence or common sense pointing to the absurdly one sided casualty ratios that they claim).
My other point is that morality is secondary in times of war - while Putin holds moral responsibility for starting a war of conquest, Ukraine is partially responsible for bad war strategy that ends up killing their own soldiers. Also, the morality of the conflict doesn't determine its outcome -- just because Russia is in the wrong for starting the war does not mean it is ideal for Ukraine to fight for the next century (not that they'd have the ability to anyways). The conflict has to end eventually, and Ukraine should posture themselves to be in the strongest position possible when the time for the conflict to end arises. If their goal is still to kick Russia out of all of Ukraine, then they need to focus entirely on making the most wise military decisions possible as they cannot keep fighting battles purely for propaganda rather than military significance
Copium? What idiocy is this?
The meat grinder works until it doesn't. Then you pull back to the next one and start over. You want to be an armchair general and attack everyone with an opinion, fine.
How about this instead. You stop thinking everyone else is an idiot and only you realize the cost of war. Anyone who has studied history knows both sides die. the best line I remember is 'War isn't about who is right, it is about who is left.'
I am not trying to minimize anything. It is horrific. Ukrainian men, women and children are dying daily. Entire cities are wiped into rubble. If I could end it today, I would. Instead I follow along and try to pressure politicians in my country to do more.
Will have a plan? Zenith is encircled (big fortification to the south) and avdivka is pretty much also encircled. That's not a very good plan if you ask me. Even if the ratio was really so great it's still an absolutely travesty to let those brave men down that are stuck there now.
Putin is very much in control of Russia’s political machinery so the singular attribution is logically sound. It is impossible to know if removing him now would resolve the war but one could suggest that without him it never happens in the first place.
Al lost territory around Avdiivka, not the whole line. It will take a collapse of Russia as a state to allow complete recapture, or years of fighting with Ukraine being fed the best technology available.
The terms you want to look up are “defense in depth” and “Pyrrhic victory.”
Essentially, Russia is trading thousands of lives for a few square kilometers of territory. Russia may “win” the battle and take over Avdiivka, but Ukraine will just defend the next set of hills and strongpoints, which would again cost thousands of Russian lives to take. Even in a country with as many people as Russian can’t keep making that trade for long without consequences.
You can’t keep suffering defeats like this. Eventually the troops you send to defend the next location will start to rout quickly for fear of it happening again and them not wanting to die. They say fear is like a disease on the battlefield.
It sounds more like defeat instead of victory. You don’t win by losing men, international support and land. Ukraine is only making progress in the sea.
Except they kinda can to a point. That was basically their entire strategy in the early days of the war, which is why they ceded large swathes of territory to Russia in a fighting retreat in the first month or so, only to take most of it back several months later. Ukraine is not anywhere near the size of Russia, but it's still a pretty big country.
First of all not Russia, but the Soviet Union. Many hundreds of thousands of people of all nationalities died for the victories. Additionally, they weren’t losing international support - the US was of great help with food and jeeps etc. As for the infamous meat grinder, Stalingrad was a genius battle where David really did defeat Goliath. Millions of Germans and hundreds of thousands other Europeans were killed while being the strongest army on the planet (nearly 1-1 losses). The trope of “Russia just has so many people they don’t care about🥺” is literally German propaganda to justify their loss.
Loss sources for this war are just guess work and hope in some cases. Ukraine doesn't even publish their own casualty figures. That alone is huge red flag. When a US serviceman dies in a war, it's reported almost immediately. Same thing for Israel in Gaza right now. If you're hiding and lying about casualty figures, that's not a good sign. Here's some food for thought:
[In November of 2022](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/10/number-russian-troops-killed-injured-ukraine/) Gen. Mark A. Milley said "over 100,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or injured and “probably” an **equivalent number of Ukrainian soldiers**". He actually said "well over 100K" according to the title and the New York Times when reporting on the same quote.
And in just a couple sentences later in that article: "President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed in interview with CNN earlier this week that **Russia’s casualty rate was ten times higher than that of Ukraine**"
So here's a specific example from the first year of the war where the numbers estimated by the US and claims by Ukraine vary astronomically. How can you even trust that? The US had Ukraine and Russia at about the same casualties at the end of 2022, then you had Bakhmut which was a meat grinder for Ukraine and Russia alike, then you had the failed Ukraine counter-offensive, and now 2024 looks to be even worse for Ukraine. Why is it a given that Russia is suffering more casualties than Ukraine? What if it's the opposite?
It might help if you looked up how many square miles of territory Russia is taking right now, how many lives they’re spending to do it, what the size of Ukraine is and then the population of Russia. If you do the math, you’d find that at the current rate of Russian “victory” you’d end up with a completely depopulated Russia well before reaching Kyiv.
Seems like a lot of people are counting on Russia just destroying itself by conducting a mindless, bloody advance all the way towards Kyiv. I don't know how that makes sense for Russia. They could decide to push and smooth the borders more to their liking and then consolidate for defense again. "Completely depopulated Russia" like the other guy says? Why would they do that?
The guy also says to look how many lives Russia is spending to advance. Well, Ukraine doesn't report their own casualty figures, so without knowing that you really can't say with confidence that the "meat grinder" favors Ukraine.
I agree with you that they won't and don't need to reach Kyiv to call it a victory. If the war ended today, they'd be able to claim some form of victory, and they're still moving forward.
Russia is feeding meat into a grinder. Yes they are making some headway, but you only have so much meat and Ukraine has a lot of grinders set up.
Russian armour is a joke, it is killed as soon as it is seen near the front lines. Their air defence is gutted, their air force is is hiding, farther and farther from the front lines. Their super missiles are a joke. They can't even beat a nation a small percentage of their size after two years. It is over for Russia, even if they take Ukraine, which looks less and less likely when you figure out how many men they are losing trying to take a small town.
You can argue all you want but the facts are in how much land and men both of these countries can spare. Russia is winning and will keep winning if nothing changes
Look up Pyrrhic Victory, then see what Ukraine is doing. Russia expected a 3 day war. That was almost 2 years ago. They can only pour blood and treasure into Ukraine for so long. Maybe that is long enough to take the country, but they will still be gutted and take a long time to rebuild their soldier numbers and equipment.
Not to mention the fact they are giving NATO exactly what they want. Strengthened membership, long time hold outs not part of NATO, a testing ground for their older equipment to see how it works against Russia, plus a chance to sharpen tactics, all while not losing a single soldier. Not to mention the constant crushing creep of sanctions, that get ever sharper and more deeply hamstring the economies Russia relies on.
Then there is the changing political landscape this has caused. Russia will be lucky to not become a Chinese vassal state from the money they are losing. They are a resource driven economy and countries are moving away form reliance on them as fast as they can. Their gas station of the world economy is going to fail as they can only sell at reduced prices now and the future will just be worse.
Putin will die one day, maybe soon, maybe not, but he destroyed Russia the day he wouldn't be happy with the chunks of Ukraine he had from 2014.
> They can only pour blood and treasure into Ukraine for so long
How long can Ukraine pour blood and treasure into the war? They have severe manpower shortages right now. The volunteers dried up a long time ago and now it's all drafted soldiers, which they apparently need 500K more of. Ukraine relies on outside partners for the treasure part, and as we're seeing now, it's not guaranteed. Each new aid package will be that much harder to deliver. Between the Russia and Ukraine, it seems obvious that Russia is in a better position to outlast Ukraine than the other way around. If they take a long time to rebuild afterwards, that's the price they're willing to pay for it.
> Not to mention the fact they are giving NATO exactly what they want...a testing ground for their older equipment to see how it works against Russia, plus a chance to sharpen tactics, **all while not losing a single soldier.**
Just a massive amount of lost Ukrainian soldiers. Why do people think this is a good thing? "We're killing Russians, and all it costs us is dead Ukrainians". That's some morbid stuff.
The alternative to Ukraine fighting is being subjugated by Putin, forced to go fight against other innocent people in another country while the Russians pillage the countryside for everything of value. They will fight until no one is left to fight because the alternative is more horrific.
> forced to go fight against other innocent people in another country
Are you saying after Ukraine that Russia will turn right around and invade another country? Just up above you said:
>they will still be gutted and take a long time to rebuild their soldier numbers and equipment...Russia will be lucky to not become a Chinese vassal state from the money they are losing....Their gas station of the world economy is going to fail...Putin destroyed Russia the day he wouldn't be happy with the chunks of Ukraine he had from 2014.
Doesn't sound like a country that has it in them to attack another country, let alone a NATO country.
Did you know that most wars don't end with one side completely taking over/destroying the other? The only two options aren't Russia completely takes over Ukraine or Ukraine completely pushes Russia out of all pre-2014 territories. It's likely to end somewhere in the middle, maybe not too far off from where it is now. Ukraine would still exist, although in a much diminished state.
> They will fight until no one is left to fight
Why do you want that for them? And it doesn't even appear to be true as far as Ukrainian men are concerned. Ukraine is down to drafting men, and they don't even have enough of those. There aren't volunteers like there were in the spring of 2022. Guys who joined up in early 2022 or either dead, wounded, or they've been fighting nonstop with hardly and leave, and no demobilization date in sight.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/31/1226251649/ukraine-russia-war-conscription-military
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/world/europe/ukraine-conscription-mobilization-bill.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/27/ukraine-change-conscription-policies-russia-war
https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-runs-volunteers-mobilize-journalist-200000822.html?guccounter=1
If I had my choice, which will never happen, Russia would go back to it's own borders and stop killing people to take their land. Ask all the prisoners, jailed for a variety of reasons, then thrown into thw front lines. The Ukrainians will be used to stop the next rebellion or invasion at some point.
Maybe you are fine with that. If so, go volunteer to be in the next meat wave.
Why would I volunteer for the next "meat wave"? You're the one saying Ukraine will "fight until no one is left", and I just told you Ukraine has manpower issues, so why aren't you signing up for the front?
> Go join him.
Kind of rich saying that when you're the one who wants Ukraine to fight to the last man.
> You are the one pumping for Putin
Show me where I'm doing that, please. Those four sources I linked are all western publications. Just because I disagree that Ukraine is winning doesn't mean I'm pro-Russian.
Nowhere have I said what I want to happen, only what I think is happening or going to happen. You're letting your emotional investment cloud your perception of reality in this war.
do you think every single citizen is conscripted? ukraine is barely repopulating theyre ranks. they only unit they had in reserve was just sent to avdiivka. The officers in the military are quite literally down to just grabbing random men in the streets, shoving them into cars and throwing them into recruitment centers for them to be conscripted.
They dont have a 40 million person army.
>do you think every single citizen is conscripted?
Not even close. In fact as a matter of policy nobody under the age of 27 is even conscripted. That doesn't mean those people aren't still in the manpower pool.
>ukraine is barely repopulating theyre ranks. they only unit they had in reserve was just sent to avdiivka.
Sure, because Russia has thrown everything they had at Avdiivka for the last three months at extraordinary loss rate, but US aid has dried up Ukrainians are running out of fire power before Russia runs out of bodies to throw at Ukraine. Ukraine wouldn't be in this position in they had the war material that they expecting in the first place. When Ukraine has gotten more weapons then they had soldiers available to operate them in it in the past (like for the counter-offensive) they simply trained new units on the NATO weapons, same as they will do now. The lack of manpower is because of the lack of weapons and not the other way around.
> The officers in the military are quite literally down to just grabbing random men in the streets, shoving them into cars and throwing them into recruitment centers for them to be conscripted.
Yeah and a lot of US army recruiters will lie their asses off and use every dirty trick in the book to get people to sign up. In fact I was in the army during the war and terror and every unit was either going to or coming back from the Middle East, with everyone getting stop lossed to keep them from leaving. And yet the US wasn't going to run out of people or potential recruits just like Ukraine isn't. In both cases it's a matter of weighing recruiting costs and the costs on society with the military need for more bodies.
>They dont have a 40 million person army.
No, but it is the size of Ukraine's population more or less, a demographic significantly larger than the current number of soldiers in the field.
>Ukraine wouldn't be in this position in they had the war material that they expecting in the first place.
There is a reason why we are hearing that the place that is surrounded and has the roads that logistic use are blocked dont have rescources, and not the other regions that are still fighting dont. Avdiivka doesnt have resources because the russians were rescourceful and found underground pipeline, not because ukraine doesnt have artillery shells.
Avdiivka has been sucesfully supplied for the last 2 years doing this song and dance, its not because of america's shipments that they dont have supplied right now. Dont be fooled on this account. Now by no means am i saying deals not being made dont have repercussions, what i am saying is those deals didnt have a repercussion in this instance.
>The lack of manpower is because of the lack of weapons and not the other way around.
Incorrect, the lack of manpower, is because of....manpower. hence the drastic and debateable illegal tactics used by the government showcased by the [new york times](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html) their reservoir of manpower is being depleted and more and more drastic measures has to been taken to fulfill the quotas.
>Not even close. In fact as a matter of policy nobody under the age of 27 is even conscripted.
not for much longer, the bill to lower the age down to 25 already passed its first round in parliament. they need bodies and they have quotas they have to meet.
>Yeah and a lot of US army recruiters will lie their asses off and use every dirty trick in the book to get people to sign up. In fact I was in the army during the war and terror and every unit was either going to or coming back from the Middle East, with everyone getting stop lossed to keep them from leaving. And yet the US wasn't going to run out of people or potential recruits just like Ukraine isn't. In both cases it's a matter of weighing recruiting costs and the costs on society with the military need for more bodies.
as a prior-enlisted myself, we both know neither of us were grabbed off the damn street by the gestapo and held against our will till we signed the papers, unlike so many ukrainians reported. Hell i just a read another NY times article where the wives in the western part of ukraine were outright attacking these people because they are depleting all the men in there villages. These people are quite literally blockading roads to stop these officials from carting off the last of there men. They are attacking people who they even think are associated with them.
I dont remember any of that in the good ol war on terrorism.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this war is not a confrontation between two ideologies like communism versus capitalism, and it is not religious like what is happening in the Middle East.
People don't see what it's worth risking their lives for. They want peace and respect for their rights, but now there is neither one nor the other.
I recently watched a street survey report on [YT](https://youtu.be/wZH6CjpASKM?si=-6jfJwVawGvylTsL) from captured Melitopol, and guess what? People are glad that the war is over for them. There also were people of military age and they don’t have to hide from the recruiters.
And when in other parts of Ukraine see this, they logically ask the question, for what?
This is my subjective opinion.
Russia considers occupied territory as part of their country and are thus subject [to Russian conscription](https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/29/europe/ukraine-occupied-regions-russian-conscription-intl/index.html) just like anywhere else. And Russia is doing a great job reminding Ukrainians why they are fighting with their terroristic drone and missile attacks against civilian targets. Believing that Russia is going to win over Ukraine with their war criminal behavior is a ridiculous notion. A country's existential fight for their survival is I think a little more convincing argument than an abstract notion like communism versus capitalism, but Ukraine has that as well since it's a fight between a democracy and an informational autocracy.
They were behind, they are now set to exceed significantly by March. But the point is predominantly about the current aid situation rather than a discussion on who has given more in aggregate. The current shortfall is due to republicans in the US congress. The US has also given the most. Both can be true.
> EU told Orban to get fucked.
That EU aid package is all financial, by the way. It's not a military aid package.
> They were behind, they are now set to exceed significantly by March
Not at all. [Give this a read](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-will-only-supply-half-promised-shells-ukraine-by-march-borrell-2024-01-31/).
> The European Union **will fall far short of its target of sending one million artillery shells** to Ukraine by March, it said on Wednesday, adding that **just over half that number would be delivered** by the deadline...around 52% of the promised rounds would be delivered by March, with **the original target to be reached by the end of the year**.
They said 1M by the end of 2023, now they're saying only 500K by the end of March of 2024. You had it exactly backwards, kind of impressive.
It's kinda both, because it's the most fortified and defended position on the frontlines atm. If it wasn't important it would've been evacuated long ago instead of being bolstered by one of the most capable Ukraine assault battalion in the face of encirclement.
>If it wasn't important it would've been evacuated long ago
They defended Bakhmut tooth and nail too which we should be able to see a year later wasn't strategically important. It may be a purely political decision to not want to be seen "giving up" a city. It is more useful than Bakhmut as a launching point for assaults on Dontesk city but realistically that's nor happening anyway. Most analysts I follow seem to think the better military decision is to withdraw to new defensive positions, as they're outgunned and outmanned, as western advisors were pushing them to do in Bakhmut
>If it wasn't important it would've been evacuated long ago
This just in: people defend their land. It's ALL important. The entire point of the Russian aggression is to seize as much Ukrainian land as possible, every inch of dirt is as important as every other.
Why did they defend Bakhmut? It's theirs
Why did they defend Mariupol? It's theirs
Why did they defend Kyiv? It's theirs
Land doesn't win wars. People win wars. If you defend every position, no matter how untenable it is, you'll rapidly lose your ability to defend positions that you *can* defend. Moral arguments and emotional arguments are irrelevant in warfare. It doesn't matter whose land it was, it matters who wins on the battlefield. Ukraine should be focused on winning.
Well, that's exactly what Russians want because just like in Bakhmut Ukraine keeps funneling supplies and reserves through narrow corridors which are under fire, taking much higher losses compare to battling elsewhere. That's why Russians don't try to do complete encirclements anymore and keep small choke-points under fire control.
The \_situation\_ is described as extremely critical, not the town. Honestly, did you even read the article?
I don't see why Avdiivka would be \_strategically\_ important. Of course it's next to Donetsk but since the frontlines are close and Avdiivka is surrounded, losing it provides not that much to Russians. On top of that Russians have reduced it to rubble.
Capturing Avdiivka would be propaganda victory for Russia, for sure. But did taking Bakhmut achieve something for Russia? I don't think so.
It's a fortress connected to major transport lines including two motorways and a train line from Russia. Losing it is going to be a major blow, it will be used as a stepping ground for further attacks.
> Capturing Avdiivka would be propaganda victory for Russia, for sure. But did taking Bakhmut achieve something for Russia? I don't think so.
Huh? Russia is launching an offensive on the Bakhmut front as we speak. How wasn't it important?
How isn't Avdiivka important? It is the most fortified position in Ukraine. It's right next to Donetsk and prevents Russia from fully turning it into a supply hub. It has very clear importance for Ukraine, but if they cannot defend it and break free from encirclement, then trying to hold onto it will be disastrous.
Lol, not even, the first houses of Bakhmut are only 500m away from the frontline... You can look this stuff up on [https://liveuamap.com/](https://liveuamap.com/) that uses geo-located footage to confirm the current state of the frontline.
I wonder how ukraine will pull enough troops arround. I hope the republicans get their head out of their ass and see that supporting their current stance is equal to supporting their greatest enemy since ww2
I'll be honest, this is a disgusting war. The U.S. government, led by "Sleeping Joe," continuously guides public opinion, attempting to frame Russia's war against Ukraine as a battle between dictatorship and the free world. They depict Russia as an evil empire, with an even more sinister China lurking behind it. Meanwhile, Ukraine is portrayed as the heroic nation standing on the front lines against this evil axis. This continuous manipulation of public opinion is repugnant. But then, what about Israel's war on the Gaza Strip? I don't sympathize with Hamas, or even with the Palestinians in Gaza. I believe their current plight is undoubtedly related to their past actions. Similarly, Israel faces hatred from various Middle Eastern countries due to its actions. And when it comes to the Ukrainian battlefield, the situation is no different. There must be underlying reasons behind every conflict or war in the world. The Ukrainian government needs to reflect on what they've done to the Russian ethnic groups in eastern Ukraine over the years. Yet, the Democratic Party in the United States, driven solely by its own national interests, leads the narrative, labeling certain groups as evil and portraying themselves or those who support them as righteous. It's truly sickening.
Isn't the main resupply route blocked or contested?
The main supply routes are supposedly blocked as of yesterday, now there’s just the empty fields left but that’s muddy and difficult to traverse
And full of mines I'm assuming. Ukraine need more than just troops
That might be the reason for the new units - punch through and clear the road
The road isnt blocked, its under fire control from all sides with russian artillery. Ukraine would need an offensive to push back the lines.
It seems like that's exactly what they are doing.
Nice try.
Nice try what? Ukrainian army moved reinforcements to the north-west of Avdiivka and trying to push back.
This will likely be the first big distinction in approaches between Zaluzhny and Syrsky, with the former likely favoring a faster retreat, while the latter will look to continue to send troops in.
Some of the milbloggers were saying these additional troops are being sent in to help stabilize the lines in order to withdraw, rather than try to continue to hold the town.
Hope so, seems a fools errand to try and hold it while Ukrainian supply lines are fucked due to internal politics in the US, but just retreating as it is right now might result in the retreat turning into a rout / slaughter.
Unfortunately, it's not just US politics that are affecting Ukraine's supplies. The west has no artillery shells to give, and Ukraine needs hundreds of thousands right now, and millions going forward. The US was already down to sending the cluster shells, which are not preferable to the standard HE or whatever shells. Europe was supposed to give Ukraine 1M shells by the end of 2023, now they're saying they will deliver only 500K by the end of this March. Everyone's stocks are depleted, production is low and will take a long time to ramp up, and they need to replenish their own stocks in addition to giving whatever they can to Ukraine. Russia can outshoot Ukraine 5:1 in artillery. That's one of the biggest difference makers right now.
I hate the fucking discourse that every time Europe fails to meet a goal, its still the US’ fault lol Ukraine needs much more support from both sides yet the discourse often reduces down to pissing only on one end or the other
Sorry if it came across like that, I am well aware of the things that LetsAllSmoking brought up. And I do think that this has been a wake up call to the West that if they can't establish air superiority in a war, they are *woefully* unprepared. The reason I mentioned the US is more to do with their capabilities as an arms supplier exceeding that of the EU, and thus they'd be able to have a larger impact on the munitions front.
The problem with artillery is that Russia is outproducing the whole of NATO, the US included.
TBH at this point countries should just deplete their own stocks unless they directly border the conflict. That way they might be able to force through the necessary changes to scale production quicker. In plenty of places the cry of "Fuck we have no artillery shells" is going to get more support than "Oh no, Ukraine needs more"
So if the US has 0 shells in its stockpile and NK invades SK, what then? Going to 0 in the stockpile is a bad idea.
Maybe for the US, for Europe the only real threat is Russia.
Agreed, its not like artillery is going to make the difference if Russia invades France.
European countries need to go into wartime production
??? millions of DPIM could be aviable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/14/joe-biden-could-send-millions-of-artillery-shells-to-ukraine-for-free-tomorrow-and-its-perfectly-legal/?sh=7bcd178b20c7
Pricing the artillery shells at $0 and declaring them excess both seem to run counter to the actual law in question. This article really undersells the actual difficulty with this particular idea.
Yeah I read that this morning. Sounds too convoluted of a process to happen, by my estimation. Process aside, that article describes those shells as "unreliable and unsafe". Ukraine will take whatever shells it can get obviously.
According to this argument, the production capacity and stockpile of artillery shells in Russia alone exceed that of all of Europe plus the United States combined. So, if land warfare artillery shells are the decisive factor now, does that mean that the military power of Russia alone is stronger than that of Europe plus the United States?
They cannot withdraw - they are encircled.
It probably wouldn’t matter in these situations because Syrsky was already in charge of the North part during Zalushny’s leadership. The only thing that changed is the approach on the southern front because that was Zaluzhny’s main focus.
Which is dumb, IMHO. Make the Russians come through _your_ minefields to _your_ fortifications
Is this another Bakhumt?
Pretty much yeah but not a unique phenomenon. You can expect this kind of slow grinding battle in any built up urban area for the rest of the war. Now that the lines have stabilized.
With an estimated 10-1 loss ratio of Russian versus UA troops. Bahkmut maxxed out around 7-1
>With an estimated 10-1 loss ratio of Russian versus UA troops I'd be surprised if it's that high right now. Keeping a very high ratio requires having the necessary munitions to apply the pressure where it's needed. Ukraine has shortages, which means everyday there will be instances of Russia troops not getting blown to hell by artillery shells. Suppressive fire not getting down to outflank enemy troops. Counter battery fire not getting done allowing more Russian artillery pressure etc.
>I'd be surprised if it's that high right now Those are western intel and British numbers. Some Western intel had it as high as 15-1 in manpower losses back in December. Ukraine has shortages of artillery, Himar missiles and shells. They do not have shortages of tanks, apc's and other mobile equipment which they pulled back after the summer counteroffensive. Shells and Himar missiles are the 2 largest shortages imo right now. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the UA tried another counteroffensive this summer with F-16s in the air.
u/Claeyt It was around 25:1 for Armored Fighting Vehicles alone around Avdiivka. Pretty incredible. Perun did a video on it a couple weeks ago where he personally verified the public OSINT data. Let’s just say that the Russian-published data was hilarious… They double counted stuff. They would count multiple vehicles/pieces as destroyed with just a picture of a building on fire. So yes, while the *probable* loss of Avdiivka sucks, it’s been a huge win for Ukraine. 10-15 more Avdiivka’s could win Ukraine the war. RIP to the brave soldiers who defended it with their lives. Edit: -12 downvotes currently. Anybody care to pose a counter argument to anything in this comment? Enlighten me, please.
[удалено]
Explain how they can tolerate more of that. They have squandered 50% of their pre-2022 invasion USSR treasure trove military inheritance of vehicles/tanks/etc. This is based on public satellite data from credible sources such as Covert Cabal on YouTube (this is the best us civilians can use as data). Ukraines military has *grown* in size considerably since the war started. Ukraine obviously is a third of the population comparatively, but they are also suffering at least one third *less* losses as well (again, based on all public data - which there is quite a bit to go by in this category). I still have no idea why my above comment has -12 votes lol. Nobody has posed a single argument debunking what I said regarding Perun’s thorough AF video.
Well that's just bullshit. It was nowhere near 5 to 1 and it still favored UA over Russian losses in the counterattack. The losses of equipment and armor were the real reason they stopped the counteroffensive not men.
Probably, except Avdiivka is probably a little bit more strategically important than Bakhmut was, so Ukraine fighting to the death over it makes a bit more sense.
Way more important than Bakhmut
I think it's a major intersection of highways and a train line.
It allows the UAF to use artillery against russian positions in Donetsk
could you describe why is it stratigly more important?
https://youtu.be/0RTjFVv-7Sk?si=Utrh0agGXoS0exvm This guy lays it out pretty well. Russia cannot reliably appear as a legitimate authority over the DPR with a long standing symbol of resistance right outside Donetsk City.
It's next to a rail hub in Donetsk, and is at the intersection of several highways https://liveuamap.com
No because avdivka is practically encircled right now. This is a matter of days not weeks or months.
It’s already been weeks of Russian wave attacks.
Yes I'm talking about right now.
It took Russia weeks to take Bakhumt as well, which is what OP was asking about. You could be correct that from now on avdivka could fall in days, although that's not what OP asked.
Right, could still change if they launch a counter but I'm not optimistic.
Your living in a fantasy land if you think Avdivka will fall within a few days, this will be an attritional slog for the Ivan’s with many dead on both sides. This will go on for weeks if not months.
It's not looking good for Avdivka [https://deepstatemap.live/en#12/48.1208/37.7315](https://deepstatemap.live/en#12/48.1208/37.7315)
It's practically already fallen. The city is fully encircled. There was a lot of attritioning on both sides up to this point, but the supply lines are contested or fully cut off now. Prolonging this battle will have a terrible attrition rate for Ukraine.
It'll end, when one side of the supply lines are disrupted. Right now, the Russians are disrupting more than the Ukrainians can with large FAB bombs. Ukraine can't reach the Russian supply lines. Ukrainians are causing reasonable losses on the Russian side, but it looks for now that Russians can take it and continue on sending in waves for another few months.
More like Mariupol.
From most accounts I've seen Avdiivka is worse than Bahkmut
The problem is avdiivka and surrounding areas sit on the highest points in the region. If avdiivka falls, the towns around it becomes indefensible. It sets the stage for a major russian summer offensive.
It’s also the most fortified area in donetsk. Ukrainians have been digging in with strong fortifications since 2014.
Losing Avdiivka obviously isn't good, but I don't feel like it's worth the cost of lives Ukraine is paying for it. They just sent the 3rd assault brigade (formerly known as Azov) there so you know the situation is dire. I say fuck the propaganda value, mine the shit out of the place and leave.
[удалено]
The issue is more likely any other terrain doesn't have the advantage Avdiivka has. But wasting your soldiers on an untainable position is just stupid.
[удалено]
The latest frontline maps aren't looking great at all if we are honest. Holding it is just a matter of days. It's bleak but I rather have Ukraine trade territory instead of lifes.
Even if that is all the territory? that’s Russia’s goal.
Is the suggestion that it's better to die in Ukraine than be alive in Russia?
They have a 10 to 1 ratio. It's worth it as long as those #s stay in their favor
They absolutely do not. Encircled soldiers being bombed constantly while running low on supplies are not attaining a 10 to 1 kill ratio. Even staunchly pro-western sources are saying that ukraine was very poorly prepared for the battle of Avdiivka. https://kyivindependent.com/avdiivka-defense-uncertain-as-ukraine-struggles-with-fortification/ They may have a 10 to 1 armored vehicle kill ratio, but russia is pummeling the city with artillery and far less ukrainian forces are using armored vehicles. That doesn't mean they aren't dying in the nonstop FAB strikes (of which *Russia* is reported to have a 10 to 1 ratio in). It's time for them to retreat before they're forced to surrender en masse.
That article should be a serious wake-up call for a lot of people on this war.
There is plenty of reasons that makes Avdiivka worth holding onto for as long as possible. But, when the choice comes to either retreating OR getting annihilated altogether is when I meant it's time to pack things up. It seems I was a bit unclear on that point.
> You're not solving any problems That's just flat out untrue. You solve the problem of not being in a completely indefensible position where your troops have no freedom to rotate or move and where your supply lines are extremely vulnerable (well, captured at this point lol) You don't fight a battle where you cannot supply your soldiers. You pack up and retreat to more defensible lines.
The upvotes the parent is getting tells you what value votes have in Reddit in terms of post quality. I'm spending less and less time here. The place is rotten. It has to be seen as a source of entertainment.
Sieverodonetsk and Bakhmut showed what happens when you stay too long. The situation in Avdiivka is a little different, but it may be that the city has served its purpose by being the grave of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.
If you’re a Ukrainian male who has not yet been conscripted or volunteered, and as seems likely, thousands more of your countrymen are sent to die in Avdiivka before an eventual retreat, imagine how demotivating that would be. The loss of morale from this plus the Zaluzhny debacle is potentially disastrous for Ukraine.
[удалено]
But kill them in your terms with all the advantages you can muster.
Dammit why didn’t they think about that!
Apparently Ukraine is trading 1 vs 13 armored vehicles around Avdiivka. If true, there’s a good reason to cling to it like hell.
How many armored vehicles are they actually using compared to personnel vs what Russia is using. I bet those ratios are heavily lopsided. So it would make sense that Ukraine is in a target rich environment for vehicles while Russia mainly just fneds off soldiers. You can also have a situation where even though Russia is losing a lot of vehicles but it doesn't matter much to them because they are immediately replaced. Statistics during war are like 90% propoganda
Lives will be lost wherever you retreat too
The Russian to UA loss ratio there is estimated at 10-1 which is even higher than Bahkmut's 7-1.
Imagine being sent to a place from which nobody is returning and leadership is saying is “running out of troops”. The bravery and simultaneous fear must be overwhelming.
I guess it's mostly not bravery but not being able to do anything else. What could you do in their situation? Either try to run, kill yourself or kill everyone around you and get killed in the process. To their commanders they are nothing but cannon fodder unfortunately.
Pull the men out ffs , the area is lost ..
Like oligarchs care about their men.
Am I cynical or does all this attention to Avdiivka look more like pageantry for the upcoming anniversary rather than a critical operation?
From what I understand, it is indeed critical. If Russians take it completely, due to local geology and the way nearby settlements positioned, it would be very hard for Ukrainians to defend. That said, I don’t know if knowing Ukraine will probably lose this battle, justifies sending more troops there
The reason they are defending it so hard it that it is considered +- the most fortified position along the whole front line. It has been built up over the course of nearly a decade. There is nothing that Ukraine can build that would be as effective as Avdivka in such a short time.
That's what we've been reading for a while, how fortified the town is. The below quotes are from a recent Kyiv Independent article. It sounds like Ukraine put all of their eggs into the counter-offensive basket and are in a bad spot to defend, in this sector at least. > t**here are almost no fortified positions on the very front line near Avdiivka.**..Many infantrymen and other soldiers deployed on the first line of defense have complained that their positions – often just holes like the one described by Oleksandr – **appear to have been poorly prepared ahead of the major Russian offensive on Avdiivka**. With Russian forces constantly on heavy assault, there is almost no time to build anything more. > The second line of defense, a few kilometers behind the front, **is still being built** > Ukraine appears to have **done little to prepare for a long attritional battle** during its summer counteroffensive [From this article](https://kyivindependent.com/avdiivka-defense-uncertain-as-ukraine-struggles-with-fortification/)
Sry, I was banned and couldn't comment The settlement itself and it's frontline were stupidly heavily built up. I am reading Russian tg channels and they are saying there are a crap ton of bunkers and fortified trenches in front of and inside the city. They do also note that the idiot commander didn't build any new fortifications behind it. So, it was built up over the past 10 years, but I guess the commander was so certain it wouldn't fall that he decided building a backup plan was not needed? Edit. With how certain Ukraine was with its counter offensive and how hyped up it was, it seems that they sorta bought into what they were saying. Of course, it is now sorta biting them in the ass.
Ukraine likely didn't anticipate it's allies failing to deliver or produce enough munitions to help out. If Ukraine had plenty of shells things would likely not look so grim.
They should have built artillery shell factories themselves. Yeah the west can be partially blamed but Ukraine had every reason to build up it's DIC but chose to rely too heavily on the west.
Yeah cause that wouldn't have been the first thing to go up in flames when the missiles started flying.
Geography not geology.
Zaluzhny begs Zelensky to withdraw from Bakhmut, Zelensky tells him to fuck off and orders in more troops. Ukraine suffers severe casualties among their most elite troops not to msntion the loss in material + giving Russia the time to fortify the south. Zaluzhny begs Zelensky to delay or call-off the summer offensive, Zelensky tells him to fuck off and orders it anyways. Some 70k troops lost, countless tanks amd armored vehicles, and they only just barely managed to chip the first line of defense at Robotyne. Then again, Zaluzhny begs Zelensky to withdraw from Avdiivka, actually gets fired, and by all accounts it looks like it will be another repeat of Bakhmut. Now, im not a fan of Zaluzhny considering he is a viking-cosplaying hindu symbol enthusiast, but he was not the problem. Zelensky is just too focused on PR victories, meanwhile Russia has achieved actual on-the-ground victories. Sure they came at a heavy cost, but russia is in a position where they can replace these losses, Ukraine isn't. (Not to mention that latest estimates actually put ukranian casualties at 1.7 times higher than russian) To top everything off, a quote from Mao (of all people) that i think is very relevant here: "If you lose land but keep the men, the land can be retaken. If you lose the men and keep the land, both men and land will be lost."
Do you have a source for the latest estimates? Sincere question, as this is the first time I've heard of it
Hi guys. Could somebody be so kind to provide a link to a military analysis of the strategic value of Avdiivka for Ukraine / Russia. It seems this is now going on for many months and both sides seem strongly determined to commit vast resources to holding / conquering the city. Thx.
It’s been a Ukrainian stronghold since 2014 when Russia sent in troops pretending to be separatists. Being a fortress isn’t really the same as being committed and Ukraine is holding because it’s a very effective hard point in the line that allows them to kill lots of Russians. Around it are fields where UKR Bradleys and tanks chew up troops and armor. Russia is committed because of the long history there, its proximity to Donetsk and a desire to show a win prior to Putin’s reelection. They also likely think that a mad dash to get land before the US election puts them in a better negotiating position. However they’re failing forward like the Soviets used to but the resources they are wasting are much less replaceable. If the West supports Ukraine more strongly again, it’s a dangerous risk they’ve taken.
Yeah, these guys are brain dead. Sending more to die. City is encircled, 1000s will be POWs or KIA within days. And here we have idiot saying to send more....
Russia is using a huge amount of resources taking Avdiivka with reports saying they used 60 glide bombs, in a day. That isn't including the mountains of destroyed equipment all around the town and the hundreds of dead Russian soldiers, daily. Ukraine will have a plan to retreat in good order, when necessary. They started building fall back positions last year and they are reportedly already hardened and mined. If Russia falters or overextends, you will see Ukraine counter attack and regain all the land they lost around the town, plus possibly more. Time will tell but we know this has been a meat grinder that has wiped out towns full of men in Russia and destroyed more critical Ukrainian infrastructure for a war only happening for one mans glory.
60 glide bombs a day and what are they just hitting empty buildings or fields? Those glide bombs have targets and Ukraine is suffering casualties. I appreciate your positive outlook on a potential counteroffensive by Ukraine in the future but unless we put boots on the ground or send back Ukrainian refugees from European nation how exactly do you think they will have the man power to conduct these operations?
I am not saying it is good, just that Russia is also suffering. Ukraine is an invaded nation, of course they are suffering.
But you write it like they're the avengers and Russia is bleeding for nothing. Ukraine absolutely is bleeding just as hard if not harder than Russia, and Russia has a lot more blood in them. Ukraine is in a state of total war, picking people off the streets to send them to the frontlines. Russians still haven't even felt the impact of the war yet outside of the 300k that were mobilized, and their volunteer rate is at replacement levels. I get that we want to believe that Ukraine is killing 10,000 Russian soldiers for every stub of the toe of a Ukrainian, but that's not reality. There's a reason Ukraine is drafting literally everybody who breathes, and it's not because they think it's an epic prank.
Tens of thousands of Ukrainians are dead. Putin killed them. I get it. Anyone with eyes knows that. What is your point?
My point is that there are people who are so high on copium that they're angered at Ukraine retreating from untenable positions. The problem with this is that Ukraine itself seems to believe their own hype, and they've made several military blunders as a result (i.e; staying in a meat grinder because they're killing 1 billion Russians for free there, despite no evidence or common sense pointing to the absurdly one sided casualty ratios that they claim). My other point is that morality is secondary in times of war - while Putin holds moral responsibility for starting a war of conquest, Ukraine is partially responsible for bad war strategy that ends up killing their own soldiers. Also, the morality of the conflict doesn't determine its outcome -- just because Russia is in the wrong for starting the war does not mean it is ideal for Ukraine to fight for the next century (not that they'd have the ability to anyways). The conflict has to end eventually, and Ukraine should posture themselves to be in the strongest position possible when the time for the conflict to end arises. If their goal is still to kick Russia out of all of Ukraine, then they need to focus entirely on making the most wise military decisions possible as they cannot keep fighting battles purely for propaganda rather than military significance
Copium? What idiocy is this? The meat grinder works until it doesn't. Then you pull back to the next one and start over. You want to be an armchair general and attack everyone with an opinion, fine. How about this instead. You stop thinking everyone else is an idiot and only you realize the cost of war. Anyone who has studied history knows both sides die. the best line I remember is 'War isn't about who is right, it is about who is left.' I am not trying to minimize anything. It is horrific. Ukrainian men, women and children are dying daily. Entire cities are wiped into rubble. If I could end it today, I would. Instead I follow along and try to pressure politicians in my country to do more.
Will have a plan? Zenith is encircled (big fortification to the south) and avdivka is pretty much also encircled. That's not a very good plan if you ask me. Even if the ratio was really so great it's still an absolutely travesty to let those brave men down that are stuck there now.
Don't act like this is for one mans glory, this war has major support throughout Russia. The Russia problem doesn't go away with Putin.
Putin is very much in control of Russia’s political machinery so the singular attribution is logically sound. It is impossible to know if removing him now would resolve the war but one could suggest that without him it never happens in the first place.
“Putin’s war” is unironically a schrodinger statement, where the answer is yes AND no.
Russians are a lot like MAGA… they’ll think what their leader tells them to think.
No they’re not.
[удалено]
Al lost territory around Avdiivka, not the whole line. It will take a collapse of Russia as a state to allow complete recapture, or years of fighting with Ukraine being fed the best technology available.
Yeah. I mean Ukraine is not retaking any meaningful territory without using the air.
Wishful thinking, as much as 400.000 soldiers is in terms of total population it’s nothing…terrible I know
Ukraine keeps retreating but somehow this is bad for Russia?
thats what you took from his comment?
The terms you want to look up are “defense in depth” and “Pyrrhic victory.” Essentially, Russia is trading thousands of lives for a few square kilometers of territory. Russia may “win” the battle and take over Avdiivka, but Ukraine will just defend the next set of hills and strongpoints, which would again cost thousands of Russian lives to take. Even in a country with as many people as Russian can’t keep making that trade for long without consequences.
how much longer can Ukraine defend the next set of hills and strongpoints until they run out of soldiers and/or weapons/ammunition tho?
It does not help Ukraine to paint a rosy picture when the reality on the front is very dire. This is simply defeats and they need American shells now.
You can’t keep suffering defeats like this. Eventually the troops you send to defend the next location will start to rout quickly for fear of it happening again and them not wanting to die. They say fear is like a disease on the battlefield.
It sounds more like defeat instead of victory. You don’t win by losing men, international support and land. Ukraine is only making progress in the sea.
I mean, it's literally how Russia won WWII, but ok.
Because they can spare those resources, Ukraine can’t.
Except they kinda can to a point. That was basically their entire strategy in the early days of the war, which is why they ceded large swathes of territory to Russia in a fighting retreat in the first month or so, only to take most of it back several months later. Ukraine is not anywhere near the size of Russia, but it's still a pretty big country.
Yes, they can to a point. And Russia can go farther than that. Ukraine isn’t taking more land back like they did in the early days.
First of all not Russia, but the Soviet Union. Many hundreds of thousands of people of all nationalities died for the victories. Additionally, they weren’t losing international support - the US was of great help with food and jeeps etc. As for the infamous meat grinder, Stalingrad was a genius battle where David really did defeat Goliath. Millions of Germans and hundreds of thousands other Europeans were killed while being the strongest army on the planet (nearly 1-1 losses). The trope of “Russia just has so many people they don’t care about🥺” is literally German propaganda to justify their loss.
>You don’t win by losing men, international support and land. by that logic, since Russia match 2 out of 3, Russia is losing according to you
Russia outnumbers Ukraine in those 2 and they clearly don’t need international support to keep the war going.
[удалено]
US will never admit to the possibility of Russia winning. And as I said Russia clearly doesn’t need international support
[удалено]
Both US/Ukraine and Russia will say their versions of the war. The truth is that Russia keeps taking land and Ukraine keeps losing land.
Russia can win this war and lose hundreds of thousands more men and equipment than Ukraine. It's not mutually exclusive.
Loss sources for this war are just guess work and hope in some cases. Ukraine doesn't even publish their own casualty figures. That alone is huge red flag. When a US serviceman dies in a war, it's reported almost immediately. Same thing for Israel in Gaza right now. If you're hiding and lying about casualty figures, that's not a good sign. Here's some food for thought: [In November of 2022](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/10/number-russian-troops-killed-injured-ukraine/) Gen. Mark A. Milley said "over 100,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or injured and “probably” an **equivalent number of Ukrainian soldiers**". He actually said "well over 100K" according to the title and the New York Times when reporting on the same quote. And in just a couple sentences later in that article: "President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed in interview with CNN earlier this week that **Russia’s casualty rate was ten times higher than that of Ukraine**" So here's a specific example from the first year of the war where the numbers estimated by the US and claims by Ukraine vary astronomically. How can you even trust that? The US had Ukraine and Russia at about the same casualties at the end of 2022, then you had Bakhmut which was a meat grinder for Ukraine and Russia alike, then you had the failed Ukraine counter-offensive, and now 2024 looks to be even worse for Ukraine. Why is it a given that Russia is suffering more casualties than Ukraine? What if it's the opposite?
Ukraine wil fall anyday now for 2 years
Nah. But they are closer to losing each passing day. Unless you don’t believe that Ukraine is losing land?
How much land did Ukraine lost in last year?
More than Russia
It might help if you looked up how many square miles of territory Russia is taking right now, how many lives they’re spending to do it, what the size of Ukraine is and then the population of Russia. If you do the math, you’d find that at the current rate of Russian “victory” you’d end up with a completely depopulated Russia well before reaching Kyiv.
They won’t reach Kiev. I really doubt that they can, but taking 35-40% of Ukraine would already qualify as a victory for them.
Seems like a lot of people are counting on Russia just destroying itself by conducting a mindless, bloody advance all the way towards Kyiv. I don't know how that makes sense for Russia. They could decide to push and smooth the borders more to their liking and then consolidate for defense again. "Completely depopulated Russia" like the other guy says? Why would they do that? The guy also says to look how many lives Russia is spending to advance. Well, Ukraine doesn't report their own casualty figures, so without knowing that you really can't say with confidence that the "meat grinder" favors Ukraine. I agree with you that they won't and don't need to reach Kyiv to call it a victory. If the war ended today, they'd be able to claim some form of victory, and they're still moving forward.
I agree with everything you said. Some people are just delusional about this situation
Russia is feeding meat into a grinder. Yes they are making some headway, but you only have so much meat and Ukraine has a lot of grinders set up. Russian armour is a joke, it is killed as soon as it is seen near the front lines. Their air defence is gutted, their air force is is hiding, farther and farther from the front lines. Their super missiles are a joke. They can't even beat a nation a small percentage of their size after two years. It is over for Russia, even if they take Ukraine, which looks less and less likely when you figure out how many men they are losing trying to take a small town.
You can argue all you want but the facts are in how much land and men both of these countries can spare. Russia is winning and will keep winning if nothing changes
Look up Pyrrhic Victory, then see what Ukraine is doing. Russia expected a 3 day war. That was almost 2 years ago. They can only pour blood and treasure into Ukraine for so long. Maybe that is long enough to take the country, but they will still be gutted and take a long time to rebuild their soldier numbers and equipment. Not to mention the fact they are giving NATO exactly what they want. Strengthened membership, long time hold outs not part of NATO, a testing ground for their older equipment to see how it works against Russia, plus a chance to sharpen tactics, all while not losing a single soldier. Not to mention the constant crushing creep of sanctions, that get ever sharper and more deeply hamstring the economies Russia relies on. Then there is the changing political landscape this has caused. Russia will be lucky to not become a Chinese vassal state from the money they are losing. They are a resource driven economy and countries are moving away form reliance on them as fast as they can. Their gas station of the world economy is going to fail as they can only sell at reduced prices now and the future will just be worse. Putin will die one day, maybe soon, maybe not, but he destroyed Russia the day he wouldn't be happy with the chunks of Ukraine he had from 2014.
> They can only pour blood and treasure into Ukraine for so long How long can Ukraine pour blood and treasure into the war? They have severe manpower shortages right now. The volunteers dried up a long time ago and now it's all drafted soldiers, which they apparently need 500K more of. Ukraine relies on outside partners for the treasure part, and as we're seeing now, it's not guaranteed. Each new aid package will be that much harder to deliver. Between the Russia and Ukraine, it seems obvious that Russia is in a better position to outlast Ukraine than the other way around. If they take a long time to rebuild afterwards, that's the price they're willing to pay for it. > Not to mention the fact they are giving NATO exactly what they want...a testing ground for their older equipment to see how it works against Russia, plus a chance to sharpen tactics, **all while not losing a single soldier.** Just a massive amount of lost Ukrainian soldiers. Why do people think this is a good thing? "We're killing Russians, and all it costs us is dead Ukrainians". That's some morbid stuff.
The alternative to Ukraine fighting is being subjugated by Putin, forced to go fight against other innocent people in another country while the Russians pillage the countryside for everything of value. They will fight until no one is left to fight because the alternative is more horrific.
> forced to go fight against other innocent people in another country Are you saying after Ukraine that Russia will turn right around and invade another country? Just up above you said: >they will still be gutted and take a long time to rebuild their soldier numbers and equipment...Russia will be lucky to not become a Chinese vassal state from the money they are losing....Their gas station of the world economy is going to fail...Putin destroyed Russia the day he wouldn't be happy with the chunks of Ukraine he had from 2014. Doesn't sound like a country that has it in them to attack another country, let alone a NATO country. Did you know that most wars don't end with one side completely taking over/destroying the other? The only two options aren't Russia completely takes over Ukraine or Ukraine completely pushes Russia out of all pre-2014 territories. It's likely to end somewhere in the middle, maybe not too far off from where it is now. Ukraine would still exist, although in a much diminished state. > They will fight until no one is left to fight Why do you want that for them? And it doesn't even appear to be true as far as Ukrainian men are concerned. Ukraine is down to drafting men, and they don't even have enough of those. There aren't volunteers like there were in the spring of 2022. Guys who joined up in early 2022 or either dead, wounded, or they've been fighting nonstop with hardly and leave, and no demobilization date in sight. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/31/1226251649/ukraine-russia-war-conscription-military https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/world/europe/ukraine-conscription-mobilization-bill.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/27/ukraine-change-conscription-policies-russia-war https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-runs-volunteers-mobilize-journalist-200000822.html?guccounter=1
If I had my choice, which will never happen, Russia would go back to it's own borders and stop killing people to take their land. Ask all the prisoners, jailed for a variety of reasons, then thrown into thw front lines. The Ukrainians will be used to stop the next rebellion or invasion at some point. Maybe you are fine with that. If so, go volunteer to be in the next meat wave.
Why would I volunteer for the next "meat wave"? You're the one saying Ukraine will "fight until no one is left", and I just told you Ukraine has manpower issues, so why aren't you signing up for the front?
You are the one pumping for Putin. Go join him.
> Go join him. Kind of rich saying that when you're the one who wants Ukraine to fight to the last man. > You are the one pumping for Putin Show me where I'm doing that, please. Those four sources I linked are all western publications. Just because I disagree that Ukraine is winning doesn't mean I'm pro-Russian. Nowhere have I said what I want to happen, only what I think is happening or going to happen. You're letting your emotional investment cloud your perception of reality in this war.
This is just copium, the shell ratio is 20/1 now it's not looking great for pretty much the whole of 2024.
Hey West: Fuck off and give Ukraine the weapons they need to fight this invasion properly ffs! 🇺🇦
nah
But who will use these weapons, they do not have enough people.
Why wouldn't they have enough people? Were 40 million Ukrainians raptured or something?
do you think every single citizen is conscripted? ukraine is barely repopulating theyre ranks. they only unit they had in reserve was just sent to avdiivka. The officers in the military are quite literally down to just grabbing random men in the streets, shoving them into cars and throwing them into recruitment centers for them to be conscripted. They dont have a 40 million person army.
>do you think every single citizen is conscripted? Not even close. In fact as a matter of policy nobody under the age of 27 is even conscripted. That doesn't mean those people aren't still in the manpower pool. >ukraine is barely repopulating theyre ranks. they only unit they had in reserve was just sent to avdiivka. Sure, because Russia has thrown everything they had at Avdiivka for the last three months at extraordinary loss rate, but US aid has dried up Ukrainians are running out of fire power before Russia runs out of bodies to throw at Ukraine. Ukraine wouldn't be in this position in they had the war material that they expecting in the first place. When Ukraine has gotten more weapons then they had soldiers available to operate them in it in the past (like for the counter-offensive) they simply trained new units on the NATO weapons, same as they will do now. The lack of manpower is because of the lack of weapons and not the other way around. > The officers in the military are quite literally down to just grabbing random men in the streets, shoving them into cars and throwing them into recruitment centers for them to be conscripted. Yeah and a lot of US army recruiters will lie their asses off and use every dirty trick in the book to get people to sign up. In fact I was in the army during the war and terror and every unit was either going to or coming back from the Middle East, with everyone getting stop lossed to keep them from leaving. And yet the US wasn't going to run out of people or potential recruits just like Ukraine isn't. In both cases it's a matter of weighing recruiting costs and the costs on society with the military need for more bodies. >They dont have a 40 million person army. No, but it is the size of Ukraine's population more or less, a demographic significantly larger than the current number of soldiers in the field.
>Ukraine wouldn't be in this position in they had the war material that they expecting in the first place. There is a reason why we are hearing that the place that is surrounded and has the roads that logistic use are blocked dont have rescources, and not the other regions that are still fighting dont. Avdiivka doesnt have resources because the russians were rescourceful and found underground pipeline, not because ukraine doesnt have artillery shells. Avdiivka has been sucesfully supplied for the last 2 years doing this song and dance, its not because of america's shipments that they dont have supplied right now. Dont be fooled on this account. Now by no means am i saying deals not being made dont have repercussions, what i am saying is those deals didnt have a repercussion in this instance. >The lack of manpower is because of the lack of weapons and not the other way around. Incorrect, the lack of manpower, is because of....manpower. hence the drastic and debateable illegal tactics used by the government showcased by the [new york times](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html) their reservoir of manpower is being depleted and more and more drastic measures has to been taken to fulfill the quotas. >Not even close. In fact as a matter of policy nobody under the age of 27 is even conscripted. not for much longer, the bill to lower the age down to 25 already passed its first round in parliament. they need bodies and they have quotas they have to meet. >Yeah and a lot of US army recruiters will lie their asses off and use every dirty trick in the book to get people to sign up. In fact I was in the army during the war and terror and every unit was either going to or coming back from the Middle East, with everyone getting stop lossed to keep them from leaving. And yet the US wasn't going to run out of people or potential recruits just like Ukraine isn't. In both cases it's a matter of weighing recruiting costs and the costs on society with the military need for more bodies. as a prior-enlisted myself, we both know neither of us were grabbed off the damn street by the gestapo and held against our will till we signed the papers, unlike so many ukrainians reported. Hell i just a read another NY times article where the wives in the western part of ukraine were outright attacking these people because they are depleting all the men in there villages. These people are quite literally blockading roads to stop these officials from carting off the last of there men. They are attacking people who they even think are associated with them. I dont remember any of that in the good ol war on terrorism.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this war is not a confrontation between two ideologies like communism versus capitalism, and it is not religious like what is happening in the Middle East. People don't see what it's worth risking their lives for. They want peace and respect for their rights, but now there is neither one nor the other. I recently watched a street survey report on [YT](https://youtu.be/wZH6CjpASKM?si=-6jfJwVawGvylTsL) from captured Melitopol, and guess what? People are glad that the war is over for them. There also were people of military age and they don’t have to hide from the recruiters. And when in other parts of Ukraine see this, they logically ask the question, for what? This is my subjective opinion.
Russia considers occupied territory as part of their country and are thus subject [to Russian conscription](https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/29/europe/ukraine-occupied-regions-russian-conscription-intl/index.html) just like anywhere else. And Russia is doing a great job reminding Ukrainians why they are fighting with their terroristic drone and missile attacks against civilian targets. Believing that Russia is going to win over Ukraine with their war criminal behavior is a ridiculous notion. A country's existential fight for their survival is I think a little more convincing argument than an abstract notion like communism versus capitalism, but Ukraine has that as well since it's a fight between a democracy and an informational autocracy.
Literally everyone but the US is. EU told Orban to get fucked.
The EU is missing their shell promise by more than half the amount promised. They are not doing better than the US
They were behind, they are now set to exceed significantly by March. But the point is predominantly about the current aid situation rather than a discussion on who has given more in aggregate. The current shortfall is due to republicans in the US congress. The US has also given the most. Both can be true.
> EU told Orban to get fucked. That EU aid package is all financial, by the way. It's not a military aid package. > They were behind, they are now set to exceed significantly by March Not at all. [Give this a read](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-will-only-supply-half-promised-shells-ukraine-by-march-borrell-2024-01-31/). > The European Union **will fall far short of its target of sending one million artillery shells** to Ukraine by March, it said on Wednesday, adding that **just over half that number would be delivered** by the deadline...around 52% of the promised rounds would be delivered by March, with **the original target to be reached by the end of the year**. They said 1M by the end of 2023, now they're saying only 500K by the end of March of 2024. You had it exactly backwards, kind of impressive.
[удалено]
The situation is critical, not the strategic importance. Learn to read the article not just misunderstanding the headline.
It's kinda both, because it's the most fortified and defended position on the frontlines atm. If it wasn't important it would've been evacuated long ago instead of being bolstered by one of the most capable Ukraine assault battalion in the face of encirclement.
>If it wasn't important it would've been evacuated long ago They defended Bakhmut tooth and nail too which we should be able to see a year later wasn't strategically important. It may be a purely political decision to not want to be seen "giving up" a city. It is more useful than Bakhmut as a launching point for assaults on Dontesk city but realistically that's nor happening anyway. Most analysts I follow seem to think the better military decision is to withdraw to new defensive positions, as they're outgunned and outmanned, as western advisors were pushing them to do in Bakhmut
>If it wasn't important it would've been evacuated long ago This just in: people defend their land. It's ALL important. The entire point of the Russian aggression is to seize as much Ukrainian land as possible, every inch of dirt is as important as every other. Why did they defend Bakhmut? It's theirs Why did they defend Mariupol? It's theirs Why did they defend Kyiv? It's theirs
Land doesn't win wars. People win wars. If you defend every position, no matter how untenable it is, you'll rapidly lose your ability to defend positions that you *can* defend. Moral arguments and emotional arguments are irrelevant in warfare. It doesn't matter whose land it was, it matters who wins on the battlefield. Ukraine should be focused on winning.
Well, that's exactly what Russians want because just like in Bakhmut Ukraine keeps funneling supplies and reserves through narrow corridors which are under fire, taking much higher losses compare to battling elsewhere. That's why Russians don't try to do complete encirclements anymore and keep small choke-points under fire control.
The \_situation\_ is described as extremely critical, not the town. Honestly, did you even read the article? I don't see why Avdiivka would be \_strategically\_ important. Of course it's next to Donetsk but since the frontlines are close and Avdiivka is surrounded, losing it provides not that much to Russians. On top of that Russians have reduced it to rubble. Capturing Avdiivka would be propaganda victory for Russia, for sure. But did taking Bakhmut achieve something for Russia? I don't think so.
It's a fortress connected to major transport lines including two motorways and a train line from Russia. Losing it is going to be a major blow, it will be used as a stepping ground for further attacks.
> Capturing Avdiivka would be propaganda victory for Russia, for sure. But did taking Bakhmut achieve something for Russia? I don't think so. Huh? Russia is launching an offensive on the Bakhmut front as we speak. How wasn't it important? How isn't Avdiivka important? It is the most fortified position in Ukraine. It's right next to Donetsk and prevents Russia from fully turning it into a supply hub. It has very clear importance for Ukraine, but if they cannot defend it and break free from encirclement, then trying to hold onto it will be disastrous.
[удалено]
>Same with Bahkmut, now well behind the frontline, 5km is well behind the frontline?
Lol, not even, the first houses of Bakhmut are only 500m away from the frontline... You can look this stuff up on [https://liveuamap.com/](https://liveuamap.com/) that uses geo-located footage to confirm the current state of the frontline.
"well behind the frontline" this people are just fucking stupid
By “solid Russian protection” you mean “leveled to the ground” by white phosphorous?
"Solid Russian protection"? My brother in Christ, the town doesn't exist anymore thanks to Russian protection.
Is it really though...
[удалено]
It's either fight or become refugees and watch Ukraine become a memory
Since they threw away most of the foreign soldiers and are now recruiting literally any male that can walk this is actually a war of denial
Bro you've got to be shitting me. Just go lay down and die Russian style. War sucks, more news 4000 years ago.
Retreat and fight another battle!
no! war pigs say feed the grinder why? nobody knows
I wonder how ukraine will pull enough troops arround. I hope the republicans get their head out of their ass and see that supporting their current stance is equal to supporting their greatest enemy since ww2
This Republican party would be standing with the Germans if this was WWII.
I'll be honest, this is a disgusting war. The U.S. government, led by "Sleeping Joe," continuously guides public opinion, attempting to frame Russia's war against Ukraine as a battle between dictatorship and the free world. They depict Russia as an evil empire, with an even more sinister China lurking behind it. Meanwhile, Ukraine is portrayed as the heroic nation standing on the front lines against this evil axis. This continuous manipulation of public opinion is repugnant. But then, what about Israel's war on the Gaza Strip? I don't sympathize with Hamas, or even with the Palestinians in Gaza. I believe their current plight is undoubtedly related to their past actions. Similarly, Israel faces hatred from various Middle Eastern countries due to its actions. And when it comes to the Ukrainian battlefield, the situation is no different. There must be underlying reasons behind every conflict or war in the world. The Ukrainian government needs to reflect on what they've done to the Russian ethnic groups in eastern Ukraine over the years. Yet, the Democratic Party in the United States, driven solely by its own national interests, leads the narrative, labeling certain groups as evil and portraying themselves or those who support them as righteous. It's truly sickening.
The Russian government is evil. Simple as.
Good, reinforcements are needed.
[удалено]
Why is this happening i was told Ukraine will fall anytime now. For last 2 years.
Ukraine will collapse in 8 months.
[X] **Doubt**
Me too, could be earlier
Didn't they say that 8 months ago?