[ad_1]
The trouble with Russia’s claim to have taken Bakhmut is Russian credibility. The Ukrainians say the Russians haven’t taken the city. What visual evidence there is seems to be from way behind the front lines. Russian footage, such as it is, indicates artillery fire in the far distance from a deserted area.
After months of spectacularly unimpressive fighting and insane casualties, it’s no victory even if it’s true. Interpretations are often self-serving. Zelensky’s comment about Bakhmut being “only in our hearts” is more likely to refer to the wasteland that was once a thriving town.
There’s also the little matter of prolonged complaints for months about the lack of ammo by Wagner. What, overnight the Ammunition Fairy arrived, and well-dug-in Ukrainians changed their minds? Not too plausible, is it?
Militarily, it’s even less impressive if it’s true. Many commentators have been saying for just as many months that taking Bakhmut wouldn’t achieve very much on a strategic level.
The commentary has its own problems. According to the above link, the Ukrainans plant to “encircle” Bakhmut. The “encirclement syndrome” in this war is truly stupid. Encirclement is the most expensive, most time-consuming, and least viable option.
Just about every battle in this war, according to commentators, has involved somebody surrounding something. It’s never happened yet. Tactically, it’s usually a complex, slow process, which requires physical access to Bakhmut rear areas, which even the Russians have never claimed to have.
Outflanking would do. The Russians tend to back out of any situation where they’re outflanked, with good reason. They’re virtually immobile. They can’t get in to a war of maneuver anymore with what’s left of their museum of armor and other vehicles.
At Kherson, they didn’t wait to be outflanked. They retreated, quickly. At Izyum and Kharkiv their flanks were exposed and they retreated. …So why “encircle” Bakhmut?
…Nor, strangely, does Russia claim to have broken through anything at all. Wouldn’t you have to at least push back the Ukrainians far enough to take the city? Why not mention that? Just claiming they’ve taken the city doesn’t really stack up against their own previous statements.
Wagner Group is also taking all the credit. According to Wagner, there were no other forces involved. There were a lot of other Russian forces in the area. Were they on holiday? There are more than a few issues with saying whole brigades are doing nothing in a combat zone. You can see where the plausibility is looking pretty two-dimensional.
I would be more likely to believe someone won the city in a raffle.
You could draw an arbitrary line anywhere, and call it the city of Bakhmut. So what? It doesn’t alter the actual military situation at all.
“So what” includes a few other issues:
- How and with what do the Russians intend to hold it, if they’ve captured it?
- What are the supposedly uninvolved Russian forces doing, if anything?
- What’s left of the Russian forces, other than press releases?
- Can this “information” have any impact at all on the real military situation?
- A Ukrainian counteroffensive will redefine the war. Bakhmut won’t matter at all when that happens.
History has a habit of making people look ridiculous in wars. There are just too many holes in the story.
The post Op-Ed: Bakhmut…And? appeared first on Digital Journal.
[ad_2]
Source link
