How Russian casualty figures prove Ukraine was right to disregard US advice on Bakhmut
Video Statistics and Information
Channel: Times Radio
Views: 2,163,427
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: timesradio, russia ukraine war, russia ukraine, ukraine russia, russia ukraine news, ukraine russia war, ukraine russia news, russia ukraine war news, russia ukraine update, russia ukraine conflict, russia ukraine war live, russia ukraine war russian, russia vs ukraine war update, ukraine russian, ukraine war, russia vs ukraine, russia war ukraine, ukraine, russia ukraine war update, ukraine news, war in ukraine, russian ukraine war, russia vs ukraine war, russia
Id: wf8gN7846kU
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 4min 34sec (274 seconds)
Published: Tue May 02 2023
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
Please take the time to read the rules and our policy on trolls/bots. In addition:
Is
youtube.com
an unreliable source? Let us know.Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. Send us a modmail
Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
If they had ceded Bakhmut the RF would have just gone to Chasiv Yar next. It's not like they'll just be all done, war's over, because of the taking of Bakhmut. Anyone that said to do so is an idiot.
How do they know it wasn't a ruse?
I think the real proof will be how the war turns out/ when we can see UA casualty figures. Not taking extravagant casualties and increasing supply line length isn't a bad strategy. Russia is known to suck at supply lines
As long as the enemy keeps attacking you have to fight somewhere. Apparently Bakhmut has a lot of sturdy concrete buildings with basements, and the towns further west would be easier for the russians to destroy totally with artillery so it seems logical to make a stand in Bakhmut.
Clickbait title, but a decent interview none the less.
It's very difficult to say that a strategic decision is right or wrong without the benefit of hindsight-- or even with it. If Ukraine had evacuated Bakhmut months ago and decided to make a stand at Chasiv Yar or another town, we might say, "See, it wasn't a disaster to leave Bakhmut."
There's no perfect decision. It's not just a problem, it's a dilemma, with pros and cons in every scenario. We can look back and rationalize it now, but nobody could have been %100 sure that Wagner would lack the forces to encircle the Ukrainian forces in Bakhmut (the most important outcome so far). If they had been encircled, even with the massive death-toll of Wagner forces, we might be calling the decision to stay a disaster.
We can at least say that the Ukrainian commanders are not fools, that they made an educated gamble that paid off. Russia might take Bakhmut but there will be no encirclement. Many of the best Russian units were annihilated while trying to storm well-prepared defences. And most importantly, Ukraine is in good shape for the counter-offensive.
I really doubt there was any sort of rift within the armed forces themselves. At most armchair generals who are not invovled in adivising Ukraine adivised against holding Bakhmut. If the actual advisors thought it was a bad idea Ukraine would have retreated.
Sometimes you canβt take the advice from the US. The US had the most efficient and best military in the world with its amazing combined force strategy etc. US has been extremely successful in making sure that they donβt get many of their own troops killed and their doctrine sort of that takes that into account.
Ukrainian donβt have the strength of the US military and probably needs to βsacrificeβ more of their troops to be able to gain anything at all.