Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Dirtypersonpromax t1_jaaxxrp wrote

It’s confusing to read news, I just read elite Russian soldiers are having a bad time.

104

xenoghost1 t1_jabaz7s wrote

Both can be true. The elite forces could be seriously incurring loses while the overall russian forces still winning.

144

UristMcHammer t1_jabvl7j wrote

it's literally the "we've won... but at what cost" meme

44

nagrom7 t1_jac0qt4 wrote

"One more such victory and we are undone" - King Pyrrhus of Epirus, origin of the term 'Pyrrhic victory', which is what Bakhmut would be considered to the Russians. He was famous for winning stunning victories against the Romans that involved so many casualties on his side that he could never capitalise on them.

37

[deleted] t1_jabenny wrote

[deleted]

−9

BigBeerBellyMan t1_jabn0zv wrote

>they've lost 1000 troops a day for 6 months trying to take a town with little strategic importance.

They lost 180,000 troops trying to take Bakhmut?

23

crusnik404 t1_jabohhb wrote

Always interesting seeing second-hand disinformation in real time.

13

PumpkinManGuy t1_jabq78q wrote

Russia isn't measuring victory by lives not lost. They're measuring it by ground taken and if it takes a million men to get their kilometer so be it.

14

fortevn t1_jabt4ej wrote

Bakhmut being little strategic is the most braindead propaganda I've read this year. Zelensky vowed to protect it, urged the West to send more weapons and quickly so they could defend it. Half of the reports of how fierce and hellish the war is being fought were on it. And people still go around saying "oh that city is not important".

What?

1

SleepyNervousBoi t1_jabu1um wrote

I’ve read in military nerd forums about it because I’ve been confused by mixed claims. as I understand it, the city is not itself strategic for logistics or rail or anything. But it is important for Russia to take it to be able to take more important cities like kramatorsk and Sloviansk.

3

thederpofwar321 t1_jabw96q wrote

Its the type of city you hold to buy time, not to win. If its clear holding will be too risky then they'll have to just pull back and repeat elsewhere.

3

BlessedTacoDevourer t1_jacluzx wrote

As it looks currently, Russia will most likely focus on capturing Chasiv Yar, a city close to Bakhmut. It's the only line of supply into Bakhmut itself and capturing it would cut off the Ukrainians in Bakhmut from being resupplied or reinforced. The assumption being that since Ukraine would operationally encircled they would be forced to withdraw their troops, allowing Russia to move in. If this happens, Russia would likely move into Konstantinovka to straighten their frontline which would let their artillery advance and target the next area.

There are two main reason why the advances are made in small steps.

  1. Essentially every little village along the front is a stronghold and incredibly difficult and costly to capture

  2. Russian troops want to stay in range of their short range howitzers and MLRS. Russia has suffered from bad communication already and presumably this is a way to combat that.

Its worth noting that this is a best case scenario for Russia, if Bakhmut falls the troops in Siversk would then be at risk. If this happens the Russians will most likely attack Siversk from Soledar, Lysychansk and Bilohorivka.

If this is successful then Russia could take the M03 highway and move onto Sloviansk. Advancing in this manner would mean advancing for 40km on a very narrow stretch of land, obviously putting those Russians in major risk of being cut off and encircled by the Ukrainians. The likely way Russia will attempt to combat this is by using their troops in Konstantinovka to take the H20 highway and move on Kramatorsk at the same time. This would mean a Russian advance of 30km.

Bakhmut started in August 2022, so it's unlikely that this will be successful, though I'm basing this on information from Feb 13. Something that complicates it is the elevation difference between Sloviansk and Krasna Hora. It's an advantage for Ukraine as it would allow them to see the Russians easier. A similar advantage has been used in Vuhledar to stop the Russians from advancing.

3

RedWojak t1_jabdkbn wrote

I think all soldiers there having a bad time. It's a god damn war where soldiers are trying their best to kill each other. And both sides saying "im fine" or keep silent after they sustain losses, while other side is pointing at each and every small victory. Both sides saying other side is loosing no matter if it's true or not.

56

Fandorin t1_jabspor wrote

I think you're thinking of Vuhledar, where the Russian 155th got mauled. That's the southern front. Bakhmut is in the East and has been stormed by Wagner mercs for months. They've been recently replaced by the regular military that's had some success on the flanks. It's increasingly likely that Ukraine will need to abandon it and retreat to another defensive line.

33

LogJamminWithTheBros t1_jad6zkr wrote

The city only cost tens of thousands of lives to take and hundreds of millions in weaponry. They can celebrate their victory that took 5 months as they prepare to take the next city out of a hundred and lose another 20 thousand or so.

Massive success.

6

shkarada t1_jabyz9z wrote

Everyone is having a miserable time in Bahmut and the war is hell.

10

sylanar t1_jac76n7 wrote

Both sides are having a bad time there.

Russia has been trying to take that city for like 6months and suffered a ridiculous number of casualties trying to do so. At the same time Ukraine has lost a lot to defend it.

Russia really wants to capture the city as some symbolic win, so they're just throwing everything at it. It means they suffer a lot of losses, but also slowly make progress.

Russia should have given up on that city ages ago and tried an offensive somewhere else.

4

daniel_22sss t1_jadaquv wrote

They ARE having a bad time. Russians were storming Bakhmut for a year at this point, and lost a shit ton of soldiers there, while their everyday progress was miniscule.

3

Kaionacho t1_jaccmns wrote

Because alot of news will have a very hard pro Ukraine bias/propaganda, which is kinda understandable but I also hate it so much. It makes it very hard to form opinions/make decisions.

2

LogJamminWithTheBros t1_jad7jol wrote

You can expect a pro Ukraine bias as they are defending against Russia and punching above their weight. By all means read Russian "news" but you can expect zero honesty from it. Go read the bulwark if you want "unbiased" news. Many articles are written by military veterans, although you may just call it pro Ukraine bias anyways since the common consensus is that if Ukraine can keep adapting to what's given to them they can feasibly re take their land.

−4

cesgjo t1_jac7rgi wrote

Okay let me give you an analogy

Imagine a super elite boxer like prime Muhammad Ali vs an amateur high school athlete boxer

Ali should be able to knock out the high school boxer in round 1, right? Well, Ali defeated the highchool kid, but it took him 12 rounds, plus he wasnt able to knock the kid out. You can say that even though the highschool kid lost, Ali was still very incompetent, because what should've been an easy win for him dragged out to 12 rounds

Same thing for Russia and Ukraine here. Ukraine is losing in Bakhmut, yes, but the Russian army is supposed to be elite and superior, so it shouldn't take them "12 rounds" just to defeat Ukraine in Bakhmut

Even if Russia wins in Bakhmut, it's still incredibly devastating for them because they're losing so many soldiers just to squeeze out a small victory

1

ishmal t1_jac2g0i wrote

Yes. What about this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/11dewl3/the_situation_in_bakhmut_is_improving_the_ua/

0

barrygateaux t1_jacc2g4 wrote

This was a polish guy claiming it over a day ago from an over exaggerated Ukrainian report, which was retweeted by an american guy, then added to a video by a british youtuber, then posted on reddit where you saw it. No Ukrainian or russian sources are mentioning it. It's a rumour that grew, but based on nothing unfortunately.

A post on reddit is not a good source to use. By the time it gets to reddit it's already old or reposted with a different title by a bot a lot of the time. It's better to get info straight from Ukrainian or russian channels on telegram if you want up to date info.

10

ishmal t1_jacr4xk wrote

Thanks. I will try that.. I have been wishing that there was a single good reliable frontline news source, and maybe that is it. It seems that /r/ukraine wants to focus on morale and happy news. Which I totally get, and it serves its purpose well. I am sure that there are people who need the daily uplift, and I go there many times a day as well. I also find the best donation spots there.

2

degaussyourcrt t1_jadb0q1 wrote

I think perhaps in the entire history of war there has never been nor ever will be a reliable frontline news source. War is one of the most complex human endeavors we undertake, and there’s a reason “fog of war” is a military term. Couple a war on the ground with a war online (where both sides fight for the hearts, minds, and eyeballs of the rest of the world) and it’s a nearly impossible thing for the average Joe to get a truly accurate sense of.

1