[BostonCard]

I'm not saying that Ukraine would be doomed if Bakhmut fell.  I'm just noting the NYT view that Ukraine is putting a lot of troops into the battle for Bakhmut, possibly creating vulnerabilities.  I just hope that Ukraine's leadership has figured out evacuation plans in the event the town falls.  I expect that's true, and if so, then maybe the NYT's point is overblown.

Politically it is pretty important to defend Bakhmut. Tactically is is useful but not essential. The evacuation strategy and the willingness to execute it when/if appropriate is indeed the issue. So far, Ukraine has been real good at this, so lets hope it continues. Right now, I think Ukraine believes Russia is doing something stupid by losing lots of people there and are following the strategy of never getting in the way of your opponent doing something stupid :-).

I think the value of Bakhmut was much higher before Ukraine recaptured Izium.  Slovyansk is midway between Izium and Bakhmut, and had the Russians held Bakhmut and Izium they would have been able to conduct a pincer maneuver on Slovyansk, potentially collapsing the Ukrainian salient into a cauldron between Slovyansk and Lysyshansk.   That danger has since disappeared.  Russian capture of Bakhmut does potentially give them a gateway to Slovyansk, but I don't think anyone thinks Russia will be much of a threat to Slovyansk even if they have Bakhmut in hand.

BC

I think that is exactly the case. Obviously being astride the two roads at Bakhmut is useful, but they are controlled "upstream" anyway.

I hope (and think) that Ukranians are willing to have that cold calculus in mind with regard to Bakhmut (and other areas).  In the past, they have shown a remarkable willingness to take the Russian trade of Russian casualties for land, and not gotten overly concerned with symbolism or political concerns.  Russia, on the other hand, has had a rather myopic focus on symbolically important victories.  To me, that suggests that even though Russian commanders have improved tactically (as a Ukrainian commander remarked, "We've killed all the stupid ones"), as long as the primary goal is to curry favor with Putin, Russia will continue to miss the forrest for the trees and forget why it is engaging in certain offensives (such as trying to capture Bakhmut).  Until Russian commanders are willing to tell Putin something he doesn't want to hear, better commanders cannot overcome the problems at the top.

BC

---

This looks like it would be good news, no?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Blake_Allen13/status/1612573966119604224?s=20&t=oHiQVwt_lr_W5k6sOmoe_Q[/tweet]

At those prices, it is approaching the breakeven point ($30 - $40, per this link: https://news.yahoo.com/us-joins-eu-and-g...59347.html)

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm not saying that Ukraine would be doomed if Bakhmut fell.  I'm just noting the NYT view that Ukraine is putting a lot of troops into the battle for Bakhmut, possibly creating vulnerabilities.  I just hope that Ukraine's leadership has figured out evacuation plans in the event the town falls.  I expect that's true, and if so, then maybe the NYT's point is overblown.

Politically it is pretty important to defend Bakhmut. Tactically is is useful but not essential. The evacuation strategy and the willingness to execute it when/if appropriate is indeed the issue. So far, Ukraine has been real good at this, so lets hope it continues. Right now, I think Ukraine believes Russia is doing something stupid by losing lots of people there and are following the strategy of never getting in the way of your opponent doing something stupid :-).

I think the value of Bakhmut was much higher before Ukraine recaptured Izium.  Slovyansk is midway between Izium and Bakhmut, and had the Russians held Bakhmut and Izium they would have been able to conduct a pincer maneuver on Slovyansk, potentially collapsing the Ukrainian salient into a cauldron between Slovyansk and Lysyshansk.   That danger has since disappeared.  Russian capture of Bakhmut does potentially give them a gateway to Slovyansk, but I don't think anyone thinks Russia will be much of a threat to Slovyansk even if they have Bakhmut in hand.

BC

I think that is exactly the case. Obviously being astride the two roads at Bakhmut is useful, but they are controlled "upstream" anyway.

I hope (and think) that Ukranians are willing to have that cold calculus in mind with regard to Bakhmut (and other areas).  In the past, they have shown a remarkable willingness to take the Russian trade of Russian casualties for land, and not gotten overly concerned with symbolism or political concerns.  Russia, on the other hand, has had a rather myopic focus on symbolically important victories.  To me, that suggests that even though Russian commanders have improved tactically (as a Ukrainian commander remarked, "We've killed all the stupid ones"), as long as the primary goal is to curry favor with Putin, Russia will continue to miss the forrest for the trees and forget why it is engaging in certain offensives (such as trying to capture Bakhmut).  Until Russian commanders are willing to tell Putin something he doesn't want to hear, better commanders cannot overcome the problems at the top.

BC

---

This looks like it would be good news, no?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Blake_Allen13/status/1612573966119604224?s=20&t=oHiQVwt_lr_W5k6sOmoe_Q[/tweet]

At those prices, it is approaching the breakeven point ($30 - $40, per this link: https://news.yahoo.com/us-joins-eu-and-g...59347.html)

BC