[TrumpCard]

Perhaps some of our military history buffs here can find the most analogous historical battles to the battle of Bakhmut.  The obvious comparison to Verdun has its limitations--Verdun actually seemed to have been of some strategic value.  But it was at least a battle fought for deliberate attrition, as Bahkmut seems to be.

When in the past have so many lives been spent, seemingly willingly by both sides, on a piece of territory of so little strategic significance?

Querry whether this is straightforward and clear-eyed, but Zelenskyy's statement today suggests he disagrees with the premise that Bakhmut has little strategic significance: https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/ze...tsk-oblast

Quoting from the article cited:

"This is tactical for us… after Bakhmut, they could go further. They could go to Kramatorsk, they could go to Sloviansk," Zelensky said in an interview from Kyiv. "That's why our guys are standing there."

That statement is true as far as it goes. However, the Ukrainians could stand behind Bakhmut and still block the way. Granted, defending from a built-up area is easier than in an open field. It is also true that giving up Bakhmut brings Sloviansk/Kramatorsk notionally within Russian artillery range. However, a few km one way or another isn't going to make that much difference.

We will see what Ukraine does. There is logic to defending as far forward as possible. The question is whether Bakhmut is "possible" any more, and what the alternatives are. Ukraine better have a "Plan B" in case it is not.

Anyone know how to read this is a way that doesn't suggest Ukrainian troops in the Bakhmut area are screwed?  It's not just that Ukraine appears to be heavily outnumbered.  It's also that the geo-located positions of Ukrainian troops don't suggest an easy escape route.
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/16335...00/photo/1

[TrumpCard]

Perhaps some of our military history buffs here can find the most analogous historical battles to the battle of Bakhmut.  The obvious comparison to Verdun has its limitations--Verdun actually seemed to have been of some strategic value.  But it was at least a battle fought for deliberate attrition, as Bahkmut seems to be.

When in the past have so many lives been spent, seemingly willingly by both sides, on a piece of territory of so little strategic significance?

Querry whether this is straightforward and clear-eyed, but Zelenskyy's statement today suggests he disagrees with the premise that Bakhmut has little strategic significance: https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/ze...tsk-oblast

Quoting from the article cited:

"This is tactical for us… after Bakhmut, they could go further. They could go to Kramatorsk, they could go to Sloviansk," Zelensky said in an interview from Kyiv. "That's why our guys are standing there."

That statement is true as far as it goes. However, the Ukrainians could stand behind Bakhmut and still block the way. Granted, defending from a built-up area is easier than in an open field. It is also true that giving up Bakhmut brings Sloviansk/Kramatorsk notionally within Russian artillery range. However, a few km one way or another isn't going to make that much difference.

We will see what Ukraine does. There is logic to defending as far forward as possible. The question is whether Bakhmut is "possible" any more, and what the alternatives are. Ukraine better have a "Plan B" in case it is not.

Anyone know how to read this is a way that doesn't suggest Ukrainian troops in the Bakhmut area are screwed?  It's not just that Ukraine appears to be heavily outnumbered.  It's also that the geo-located positions of Ukrainian troops don't suggest an easy escape route.
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/16335...00/photo/1