Bakhmut is actually the near perfect scenario for a bloodletting proxy war. Just absurd losses on both sides ("but the Ukrainians lost more!" so what) and no real change to the strategic/geopolitical situation.
As I understand it, this is one of those "I can't take X until I've secured Y" situations. So Bakhmut gives Russians access deeper into Ukrainian territory without risk of encirclement or direct bombardment.
Most sources say it's a stepping stone for a stepping stone for one strategic goal, so... hell yeah worth it? Big L for Ukraine sure but the killing of military age Russians and the depletion of the soviet stockpiles will continue
Bakhmut is actually the near perfect scenario for a bloodletting proxy war. Just absurd losses on both sides ("but the Ukrainians lost more!" so what) and no real change to the strategic/geopolitical situation.
As I understand it, this is one of those "I can't take X until I've secured Y" situations. So Bakhmut gives Russians access deeper into Ukrainian territory without risk of encirclement or direct bombardment.
lmao you're basically just parroting the lib line of "Bakhmut has no strategic value".
IDK it's all gondor and the shire to me
Most sources say it's a stepping stone for a stepping stone for one strategic goal, so... hell yeah worth it? Big L for Ukraine sure but the killing of military age Russians and the depletion of the soviet stockpiles will continue
deleted by creator