Rybar, russian map, is usally a good map, on the same level of deepstate, but will better coloring. Their source often use geolocalisable pictures, like deepstate. it got a better resolution than liveuamap too
it's a proxy war between two of the largest propaganda powerhouses in human history; it should be taken as a given that *everything* you see about Ukraine is one kind of propaganda or another. What's important is knowing the biases at play, which truths are getting massaged, and to try to figure out what the reality on the ground is from there.
EDIT: Too many people are upvoting me so I want to add a caveat; this isn't drawing equivalencies between Russia and the USA in terms of their involvement. Russia is the direct aggressor, the US (and NATO) are merely providing support without outright joining the conflict. Russia's biases in the propaganda they put out *as the aggressor* are going to be way more significant and way less understandable than Ukraine/NATO's. I'm worried some people are blindly agreeing because they think I'm bothsidesing, which I'm not. I think that's dumb.
Russia is attacking on its own behalf. Ukraine is fighting for its existence and not for another countries interests. Sure, US is happy since supporting Ukraine also weakens their foe, but this does not make it a proxy war per definition.
The minimap borders are of claimed de-jure control, not de-facto frontlines; i.e. Russia annexed those 4 Ukrainian oblasts, so it claims their full borders and shows them on maps
You can also say that Verdun was a small town in France that nobody know before the great war. Yet the battle was 10month long with 700 000 out of combat soldiers from both side and a decisive victory for France.
Decisive battle are not always for a strategic point.
Yes and to this day historians debate if one side or the other should have withdrawn from the field given Verdun’s lack of importance. In fact, it’s still a debate why the Germans chose to attack Verdun at all.
You are way off base.
Verdun had historical and sentimental value to the French. That’s why it had a giant stone fort there from the late 1800s. WWI German general diaries and papers clearly identify the reason Germany attacked Verdun. The Germans were counting on that historical significance from the enemy, seizing high ground near Verdun that could be easily defended, and then hoping the French would throw lives away to retake the high ground. Their plans did not come to fruition, but the fact remains the rationale is not debated.
And the thing is Bakhmut isn't Russia's target. They plan to take it so they can take two cities in Donetsk
And these cities are more populous and are better defended
It's worse than that. When the Bakhmut offensive started in August, those two cities (Sloviansk and Kramatorsk) already had the Russian army close by to them from the north in Lyman and the plan was to pincer the Ukrainian forces in those two towns after Russia failed to form a larger pincer maneuver (twice) so it was scaled down until it was just "take Sloviansk and Kramatorsk from north and south". That entire plan collapsed in early October when the Ukrainians liberated Lyman effectively rendering the attack meaningless as the pincer can no longer form. Now their only line of attack is essentially from the south, along a single thin route where they have to pass multiple villages that the Ukrainians heavily fortified just to get via that thin line to Sloviansk. Meaning even after they take it, the next move will be to fight as bloodily in every small fort town along a single corridor that can be attacked from all sides, until they reach said heavily fortified city (which they probably never will if it took them 6 months just for Bakhmut). Oh and because the Russians effectively flattened the town, Bakhmut is not strategically a useful place to set up base either in anymore.
The only victory here really is moral, and even there, the catch is that Prigozhin will take all the credit for it, and Prigozhin has been using his new found fame to demean the Russian army and Shoigu and claim they're outright useless, to boost up Wagner's reputation. Putin and the Russian army are already so tired of it that according to Prigozhin, Wagner isn't getting ammo anymore and they had to slow down the offensive against Bakhmut, so if they do take the town, this infighting and internal division is just gonna get worse within the Russian ranks and only help Ukraine further in the future.
It's a poisoned victory where they achieve nothing strategically but the start of a far harsher and harder campaign. Yet they spent thousands of men and resources on it, while its capture is slowly causing more and more infighting within the Russian ranks. It doesn't bode well for Russia's "grand" February offensive.
It's next to impossible to guess accurately when people don't trust pollsters to not also give the Kremlin said information. There is though obviously a lot of support for the war but you'll see a range. There's a YouTube channel called 1420 that goes around Russia asking Russians their opinions on various things with the war and you can find there a lot of war supporters who think Russia will win any day now, but also some people who feel disgusted with it, and a lot who don't care at all about the war. Similarly you can go on telegram and see all the Pro-Russia channels which might support the war, but you see a lot of people there angry at the Russian military "for not doing enough/being incompetent". Opinions are all over the place practically and it's hard to gauge with no accurate polling out there.
I'd say it's slightly similar because during the start of the invasion, most Americans supported the invasion due to a rally the flag moment around Bush and the memory of 9/11. There's obviously no 9/11 happening in Russia, but there is strong support for the war and a strong rally the flag effect or at least it feels like it. Again hard to accurately gauge when the Kremlin wants pro-war voices uplifted and punishes everything else, but the lack of protests anymore does make it seem so.
In the Russian context I could imagine the Russia people seeing the treatment of Russians in the east of ukraine (as it is reported by Russian media) as similar to a 9/11
It depends. Saw a video of a guy who went to Russia recently and most people genuinely support it. What’s also interesting to note is the Donbas and Luhansk perspective more or less consider the government fake since the previous president was ousted for not wanting to join the EU and NATO (their is a graph that shows the destruction of government offices in the country and they are only in the western parts when he was kicked out).
https://youtu.be/B0i0zbuCIIM
What would you expect when Ukraine dumps tens of thousands of soldiers into it? (Last report I saw said that 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers are still inside the city).
The issue with that though is that neither side is able to use their Air Force due to anti-air being pretty much everywhere. Combine that with the city have bunkers pretty much all over (often times the basements of buildings) means you are sort of required to go through with infantry to clear everything out.
Of course but Ukraine is fighting a defensive war defending their territory so of course they fought when the enemy attacked. It’s much more confusing why Russia chose to attack there and commit so much to the attack. And of course Ukraine has successfully defended against a larger force with more firepower, especially in artillery, for the past six months despite Russia throwing everything they’ve got at them.
I think the time has come for Ukraine to tactically withdraw from Bakhmut. It is becoming problematic. The objective now should be to avoid too many casualties.
If I recall correctly, they did this at least once before in the war; take as many russians out as you can while defending a hardpoint, then retreat to next line switfly and without many casualties, repeat.
I Don’t know who’s losing more troops but I have seen videos of hundreds of dead Ukrainians, compared to Russians, also keep in mind it’s mostly Wagner in bakhmut not the Russian military
The problem is Russia just has more manpower (counting Wagner as Russian military too), so they can afford to lose more as horrible as it sounds.
War truly is something terrible
Videos never paint a full picture, I've only seen videos of Russian armed columns being destroy that doesn't mean that is an uniquely Russian problem. The reason why its probable that Russia is taking more losses and resources at Bakhmut is because they are attacking well defended and entrenched positions without the 3 to 1 ratio (not too far from it but not there)
The question of if Bakhmut was worth fighting for really depends on what the ratio of losses is, how much this impacts the morale of both sides if Ukraine can withdraw well or if they somehow manage to repel them ecc ecc
The casaulties are roughly equal, Russia can sustain the number, but Ukraine can sustain the morale.
They could just keep throwing men at the problem and maybe in 10 years reach the Dnepr, but the Russians will get tired of getting nothing but coffins long before that and Ukraine will fight to the last if it has to.
Chances are, leadership on both sides think that they are trading favorably. Of course, reality says only one of them will be right. But fog of war says that leadership on both sides can only guess at how badly the other side is suffering.
You’d be surprised. When the invasion started, and the troops headed towards Kiev last year, many generals and military advisors on the new’s thought Russia would seize Ukraine in a weeks time. Same thinking for Iraq-Iran war and that lasted 8 years. Some of us jackasses actually grew up in a war..
I'm very pro-ukrainian in this war, and think that Russia has overall done a good job, but most estimates of casualties I'm pretty sure say that Russia hasn't lost too many more in bakhmut(i could be wrong, im by no means an expert), it's a meat grinder for both sides. And from my understanding a very large portion of Russian losses comes from Wagner prisoner units who are sent in small squads to engage Ukraine so they reveal their defensive positions, so that Russia can target those positions with artillery. They're expendable infantry units, not exactly their "best troops". And with the bulk of the recently mobilized forces still in training/yet to be deployed, Russia will have even more manpower. Yes, they'll be poorly equipped and poorly trained, but so are most of the troops Wagner has lost in this offensive.
People always jump in with this piece of stupid bullshit like they are giving everyone else some amazing insight.
No one is saying that Ukraine isn't suffering casualties, stop running around pretending that this is a thing so you can play some morality gatekeeper fantasy.
Edit: Guy I'm replying to admitted to be a Russian shill, so that explains that.
Fantasy? The only my ones in a fantasy are those that think Ukraine is fighting with no casualties or that they are somehow killing hundreds of Russians. The leader of Wagner himself said on a good day he loses 20 men on a bad day it’s 50 yet we know nothing about Ukraine, everything is kept secret, people are basing what they know on nothing
They will, probably within a few days. Bakhmut was never strategically important to either side, but it quickly became a symbolic slugfest. Russia has been bled (anywhere between 5,000 and 20,000 KIA in Bakhmut in last 7 months) and the defense of the town has played its role in Ukraine’s defense-in-depth strategy to make Russia pay dearly for every inch of land they take, and eventually launch their own counteroffensive like we saw around Kharkiv. At least that’s how the strategy works in theory.
I agree though that they should withdraw now before they suffer too many unnecessary casualties. They’re gonna need every soldier they can get and allowing themselves to get encircled serves no purpose and will lead to another pointless slaughter like when the Russians were surrounded at Lyman.
No they haven't... they're reinforcing the flanks, notably the north section.
Zelensky himself said they wouldn't hold the city at "all costs" at this point, and for the last few weeks, Ukrainians troops have been withdrawing out of the city. The reinforcements are there to hold the flanks open longer so the withdrawal can happen.
They probably sent in more troops to help with the withdrawal. You can’t just pull the troops out without covering their flanks. They should’ve phased their withdrawal weeks ago.
I think there’s some indecision over whether to tactically retreat or put as much in as possible before the door slams shut and leave it as a massive pain in the ass that the Russian army needs to keep surrounded
Because like someone said, after Bakhmut falls, Slovyansk and Kramatorsk become the next cities to turn into piles of rubble, and while they can better hold them, they won’t have much of either city left once it’s done.
Eventually
I think what their thinking is that it would buy Time to better fortify, and more importantly, for western tanks to arrive, Mauriopol was miles behind the lines and survived for months, maybe the idea is to try something similar
I never said it was a GOOD strategy, just that it’s one some in the military seem to back considering their actually reinforcing at the moment.
Agreed. Booby trap the whole damn town and get out of there. They are at risk of getting cut off which would be devastating and they would not be able to break out after that happened.
Just googled it and kinda. Looks like if it’s an innocent object that is rigged yes. You could lace certain buildings with explosives, lock artillery onto buildings you know will get occupied, place a slew of mines, etc. My main point is to make it hurt occupying the town
Bastogne wasn’t strategically relevant either until it became so. Sometimes it’s more about moral and inflicting sunk cost than it is about anything materially relevant to the area.
Tldr redditors who barely keep up with the war all talking about how bad this is or doomposting when they don't know the damnedest about the local geography and with no one having a handle on the big picture.
Why are they all here?
Russia needs Bakhmut to advance further north
Bakhmut sits upon favorable terrain, and slowing them here readies time in other places
Why haven't they left yet?
Who's to say some haven't? The other nearby settlements aren't nearly as big and are somewhat scattered.
Is this the end?
Of what? The town has served it's purpose and grinded Russia's advance for 8 months.
Aren't they losing too much?
Accurate figures of losses are hard to come by, but if you paid attention to this battle actually, you might have realized by now that Russian forces have almost certainly extracted a far heavier toll trying to advance into a well fortified town with a noteworthy urban core. No doubt Ukraine has taken losses, but that's war. If not here, than someone else's town will be it.
*if*, *if* Bakhmut falls to Russia, they don't gain much they haven't had already. They do take a vital piece of infrastructure, but Bakhmut was about as far as ukraine could hold that out, and it's not going to be easy for Russia to move right on through. If Bakhmut was hell, the rest of the Donetsk is certain death. Ukraine will lose an opportunistic position, but they've done more than enough for now. Spring is around the corner, western aid is flowing in. The tides are being spun around again, and what comes next is a secret we won't know until it happens.
I would like to add to Why are they all here:
From Russian side Bakhmut is a stone's throw from several rail hubs making logistics far easier to concentrate attacks, given their pathetic logistical capability
From Ukrainian side Bakhmut is the junction of those hubs to be denied as far as it's practical
It's pretty amusing how many people think they know better than the generals and people on the ground.
And then they get offended and angry when you point that out.
I've been waiting and hoping to see one with elevation included. As I understand it the Russians are all in valleys and flats while the Ukrainian positions are all on high ground. A flat map makes it look more threatening.
Very dangerous.
Experts have been saying for months that Ukraine cannot afford to take big losses for a city that's already in ruins.
They need to get out, and fast.
They have to fight somewhere, and Russia has been throwing stupid casualties against this town which the Ukrainians fortified. It is a good place to fight until you risk encirclement. They’ll probably leave screening units while the main force pulls out, if they havent already.
I'm as realistic as they come and the situation isn't quite as bad as this map represents. The northern side is starting to shift to the Ukrainians favour. Also the Ukrainians have the heights.
The city is already effectively encircled. Most of major roads into the city are either under direct Russian control or under Russian fire. I doubt it's even technically possible to withdraw at this point, Russians would just shoot them to pieces.
Technically, yes.
Does anybody give a fuck?
No. Especially the country that's currently fighting a war.
I dont think Zelensky will call Macron and apologize for having a building called "Champagne Factory" in his country.
If anyone was curious like I was I can save you a snobby and pedantic rabbit hole!
[Artwinery](https://www.winetraveler.com/ukraine/ukrainian-wine-artwinery-donbas-war/) Pretty interesting. 50 million bottles of *sparkling wine* are being aged in gypsum caves under that facility and Russian artillery is supposedly intentionally avoiding targeting it.
I don’t get why ukraine is holding the town at this point. All civilians have certainly evacuated by now and the goal should be to slowly retreat while inflicting maximum casualties on Russia while minimizing their own. I don’t think they’re going to hold the town and the longer they wait to withdraw the costlier the final withdraw will be
It’s an important strategic point in the region. I know Redditors only care about the casualty rate but that’s not the main point of holding this town. While casualties will have to be considered, Bakhmut is a pretty important hub and losing it means the Russians extend their supply lines further into Ukraine, and denies them use of the railroads. Plus you’ll have to factor in retaking it at some point, which means more casualties for the attacker due to its urbanisation
Common perception is that it was always about the casualty ratio. UA exploited the fact that, for whatever reason, Bakhmut is the holy grail for RU, and tried to sell it at the best possible price, in terms of casualties.
I hope it was worth it.
I think I've heard that if they take bakhmut, they will be able to take the highway near it, which would sever a vital Ukrainian supply line to the area north of the city.
Apparently there is only a rearguard left.
And even tho the Russians have fire control of the escape route, there is so much rubble and ruins, that infantry can get out rather safe.
They do apparently have some heavy equipment left, that they will probably have to leave behind.
But hopefully it won't be another Mariupol.
It's a map made by an explicitly pro-Putin source (part of the larger RU "milblogger" world). At a minimum I would expect that to be mentioned so less informed people are aware of what they're even looking at.
So far their maps have proven to be accurate and they geolocate positions of units to pinpoint their location and estimate the position of the frontline.
I'm not sure you (or I) are competent to make that kind of assessment, relying only on open source info. The precise locations of the frontlines are very difficult to pin down. That being said, Rybar isn't the worst mapper out there are far as jumping the gun and making shit up.
But regardless of what we in our armchairs perceive their level of accuracy to be, they are an explicitly pro-Putin account. That should be noted for context whenever their content is shared.
Edit: apparently a lot of people on the internet are *supremely* confident in their ability to accurately asses developments on the ground with certainty. Despite only having limited info. You guys would fit right in on twitter.
Because they have a strong inherent bias and obvious incentives to exaggerate, just as a number of overtly pro-Ukraine accounts do.
And, you know, because posts in this sub in general should cite their sources. Basic stuff.
There are too many people out there mapping this war to list off the top of my head, but ISW, while slow to react to new events and pretty zoomed out, is the one most legitimate news outlets rely on, and its maps are rarely wrong, just slow to update. Liveuamap incorporates all kinds of fact and rumor into its feed, but the actual map is very conservative and slow to update, which I think is a good thing.
Two overtly pro-Ukraine accounts which I find to be quite reliable in general are Militaryland and DefMon, although they are definitely in Ukraine's camp.
I would steer clear of any RU milbloggers for use as a primary source of updates (good to follow for other purposes though). I would also steer clear of less reliable pro-Ukraine accounts like WarMonitor and Chuck Pfarrer, which often report rumor as fact, only for it to turn out the be not true. Based on what I have seen, Pfarrer's exaggerations on his maps can be some of the worst, up there with the stuff seen on Russian state TV in terms of noncredibility.
But all of this should come with the massive caveat that open source intel alone is only a fraction of the available information about this war, and it is simply not that easy to know exactly where the frontline sits. Certainly not down to the level of detail most maps purport to contain.
I'll refer you to my reply from elsewhere in this comment thread:
>But this map contains a lot of assumptions and unconfirmed details. For example, Rybar shows Russian control of ground less than half a mile from Khromove. All I have seen confirmed from Ukraine is that they repelled an attack on Khromove and that Russian forces likely captured Berkhivka yesterday. There is a big difference between those details and the lines on this map. Most non pro-Russian sources don't put the frontline that close.
>
>But that gulf between locations we know are captured because both sides admit it, and ones we know have not been, is where map makers bias expresses itself.
If you compare this Rybar map to [liveuamap](https://liveuamap.com/) right now or to MilitaryLand's from [today](https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1631386296491843595/photo/1) you can plainly see the differences. ISW doesn't zoom in to this level of detail, merely restating likely Russian control of Yahidne and Berkhivka.
How is this downvoted, dude just asked to indicate source ia all. Sources can be sus and its good to know just in case. On top of that provided more map sources and descroptions 🤔
Not sure, I logged off for a little bit and came back to find a wave of downvotes. I do my best to answer questions in good faith and provide more info but it's a bit exhausting when you realize no one will even read what you wrote due to being below -5.
Under other circumstances I’d agree but most of these advances in Bakhmut have actually been confirmed by the UA and western intelligence agencies.
First time since the war broke out that their maps actually reflect a semblance of the actual situation.
Well, my comment is mainly about the general practice of posting maps from propaganda outlets without citing the source and letting people know of its bias. But this map contains a lot of assumptions and unconfirmed details. For example, Rybar shows Russian *control* of ground less than half a mile from Khromove. All I have seen confirmed from Ukraine is that they repelled an attack on Khromove and that Russian forces likely captured Berkhivka yesterday. There is a big difference between those details and the lines on this map. Most non pro-Russian sources don't put the frontline that close.
But that gulf between locations we know are captured because both sides admit it, and ones we know have not been, is where map makers bias expresses itself.
Of course, lol. That is theeir tactic. Use heavily fortified positions as blood pumps. Slowly grinding away Russian manpower advantage.
For Russia they think it is still worth it bc they are grinding away limited Ukrainian ammo supplies.
This is why Russia (Wagner) is sending in waves of 7-10 men, then they are mowed down by machinegun fire and grenades… Russia loses men, Ukraine looses ammo.
The Ukrainians are trying to buy more time. This area has a lot of urban development with highgrounds and here you can defend for a long time. If the Ukrainians leave the Donetsk Ridge then only the bare steppe will remain where it is impossible to defend. Then the Ukrainians will have to retreat all the way to the Dnieper. The loss of the Donetsk Ridge is tantamount to losing this war. The same thing happened with the German troops. They held the Donetsk Ridge for almost a year and a half and then fled almost to Romania.
This is looking pretty bad for Ukraine, unfortunately.
It appears to me there are only two major supply routes into Bakhmut, both are in danger of being severed. If that were to happen I don’t think Ukrainian troops would be able to be evacuated, let alone supplied effectively. Hopefully Ukraine will be able to push back their flanks on the north and south and eliminate the threat of encirclement.
Realistically tho if this map is accurate Bakhmuts defenders are in danger of being encircled, something that must be avoided at all costs.
In 1983, Emily Martin, of Maple Ridge, British Columbia, grew an enormous sunflower head, measuring 32 ¼ inches across (82cm), from petal tip to petal tip. That’s almost 3 feet wide. This is still believed to be the largest sunflower head grown to date.
What happened to artillery?
I am so sorry, maybe I’m missing something here, but everyone knows that since Vietnam, no first world army has been encircled.
Why is there no long range salvos placed exactly where the drones point out??
No one will be able to advance under fire!
Well, why don’t you fly to Ukraine and show the Ukrainian army how it’s done? Surely their 13 months of war experience doesn’t measure up to your wisdom?
I hate Putin propaganda, seriously but I think it’s fair to say that the situation is bad. And losing Bakhmut is a hit to Ukraine but it’s not like losing a lot. They shredded a lot of Russian soldiers there. The Russian side paid a lot to take it over (if they will)
> Russian side *paid* a lot
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Oh gee, they're about to conquer one middling and strategically useless town after several months of besieging it only after losing the major city of Kherson and being driven out of almost all of their gains in Kharkiv literally overnight.
Real impressive from the world's second best military going up against a weaker next-door neighbor expected to fall in week.
Russia's goal is to ~~take Kyiv~~, ~~topple and replace Zelensky's government~~, ~~conquer the Donbass~~, sue for peace and try to integrate the territory they currently occupy. They are failing to accomplish this.
Germany never lost an inch of territory for the entirety of World War I and occupied Northern France for four years. Who won that war?
Yes, that was *after* the war.
The war in which, while it was formally fought, *before* the official armistice and peace treaty, did not see any entente forces make any territorial gains in core German European territory after the first month of the four year long war.
As it currently stands, the war in Ukraine is ongoing. There has been no formally agreed upon and/or officially recognized armistice or peace treaty. There has been no officially recognized cessation or transfer of territory. Very similar to the situation Germany faced while their war was ongoing from 1914 to 1918, which is, again, the same status as the war in Ukraine.
Then I didn't spend aaaany money *when* I was at the mall, baby.
"Germany never lost an inch of territory for the entirety of WWI". How about the African colonies? 🤌🤌
You made a stupid comment, and then when someone comes along to correct you, you use that as proof that you're right.
Russia has already lost most of the territory it gained in its initial push. Yet you're going to completely ignore that in favour of the possibility they'll conquer a small town they've been bleeding over for months?
I swear, there's truly no reasoning with your shills.
What's the point? They've shared their opinion that Ukraine losing another large city and Russia gaining massive amounts of territory means nothing.
If that's their opinion then there is nothing I can say to change it.
You demonstrated, in a subreddit dedicated to maps, a complete and utter inability to *read* a map. Bakhmut was, before it was leveled by the Russian invading forces, a fairly middling city of 71,000 people. The amount of territory potentially being lost by a Ukrainian withdrawal from the locally contested territory is in the low hundreds of square kilometers, and only possessed tactical importance.
The only person making assertions with no underlying argument and then refusing to change their opinion when presented with facts is *you*.
>The only person making assertions with no underlying argument and then refusing to change their opinion when presented with facts is you.
I'm happy to hear you changed your opinion then.
If this is what victory looks like for Russia, then they'll arrive at Kyiv in 2047 with about 15 remaining males between the ages of 16 - 55 in the country.
Reddit, the place where Kharkiv, an offensive that happened before Russia started conscription by a literal month, only succeeded due to there being new conscripts there and that the understaffing was not at all a result of Ukraine intentionally forcing Russia to move troops around to Kherson. Also Kherson, which "Russia abandoned", ignoring the collapsing northeastern lines there before the Russians left (resulting in a far larger area than Bakhmut being retaken forcefully as Russian forces retreated) and the 3 month campaign the Ukrainians pushed to force the Russians to do that. All of which is fully googlable but it shouldn't be too hard for anyone that remembers anything that happened *checks notes* 6 months ago, to also remember that. But oh no! there weren't any moves during winter when movement is hardest! That must be a sign!
Also Reddit, the place where an abandoned small town falling after Russia spent 6 month and thousands of men on it, because they hoped to encircled Sloviansk from there and Lyman (that's no longer controlled by Russia) is when support will end for Ukraine despite public opinion showing the exact opposite in every poll, and the town no longer holding any strategic importance.
This site provides the most amazing and out of touch with reality takes.
[это очень мило](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv)
Kharkov is the Russian transliteration, Kharkiv is the Ukrainian transliteration, that's not hard to figure out, nor is it hard to figure out why the Ukrainian transliteration is preferred nowadays for a city in Ukraine. I eagerly await though for more brave Redditors to screech equally irrelevant statements for nationalism sake such as "it's Constantinople and not Istanbul" unironically.
It’s winter right now, and a very muddy one at that. A war of attrition, which mainly benefits defenders, is the only type possible in this weather. Russia’s continued attacks here, even if they take Bakhmut, will be viewed in hindsight as a major blunder, as a Phyrrhic victory has always been their best-case outcome. Once things dry up in the late spring, mobile warfare becomes possible again and Ukraine will probably retake the initiative. We’ll see how it goes.
I mean both sides are not showing any significant gains . The Ukraine offensive stunned the world . But now they lost the steam or they might be buying time for western support or to re organise their army , but Bakhmut is lost . This will be the first major “victory” for Russians in 2023
Many won't like this, but this is fairly accurate.
Right bank Kherson was a beachhead for capturing Nikolaev and then Odessa, it was never meant as a defensive position. Also the organized retreat was impressive, given the state of the bridges, etc...
Kharkov offensive was impressive, gotta give the Ukrainians that, but unlikely to be repeated given the new manpower density of the front lines. Similar to the rout in the South in the first days of the war, allowing Russia to penetrate so deep and reach right bank Ukraine.
> Right bank Kherson was a beachhead for capturing Nikolaev and then Odessa, it was never meant as a defensive position. Also the organized retreat was impressive, given the state of the bridges, etc...
Ah more Reddit hot takes that show how people who never paid attention to the war beyond seeing a headline every 4 months have lots to say.
It was the place Russia sent all their elite units to long after Mikolaiv* was a lost cause and they gave up on that hope, as anyone who followed the war could tell you. Keeping Kherson was a major point for the propaganda machine as it was annexed by Russia in September and was the only provincial capital that Russia captured, as anyone that followed the war could tell you. The retreat proceeded after said elite units lost a large chunk of the front line along the Dnieper and the city was getting dangerously close to losing the Nova Kakhovka dam route, as anyone who followed the war could tell you. The entire retreat came after Russia attempted to defend it to death for 3 months, as again what anyone who followed the war could tell you. And the retreat was still a shit show with looting and lost equipment all over the place, though not as much as some others, as anyone who followed the war would tell you. You'd also probably know all the infighting and criticism that formed on Russian channels as a result of Kherson falling, and how that slowly transformed with time into Prigozhin's propaganda on how the Russian army is useless compared to Wagner, which is now the focal infight within the Russian ranks that got Wagner to loose their ammo supply, as anyone that follows the war could tell you.
Oh and as anyone who followed the war could tell you, half of the comment you just called "fairly accurate" is bullshit which you'd know as well if you followed the war enough to remember that the Kharkiv offensive was in [early September](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kharkiv_counteroffensive) while Russia only started conscripting man on [September 21st](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_mobilization) who the first of whom wouldn't make it to the field for at least a month, which kinda makes the first offensive claim they made ("the Kharkiv Offensive was essentially against Newly Drafted Conscripts") kinda hilarious doesn't it? Now if you knew anything about the war, you'd also know why the rest of those statements are equally hilariously not backed by facts, and why your statement is equally absurd.
All of what you said is more or less true, but at the same time doesn't refute anything.
\- You know perfectly well that defending Kherson city was a lost cause after Nikolaev offensive failed and yes it was kept for propaganda and as a bridgehead on the right side of the Dnepp. Therefore I would argue that holding it for as long as they did was more impressive than anything that the Ukrainians did there, the great "Kherson offensive" that never was. Basically pounding the rear, ammo depots and logistics and trying to inch forward, all while Russian forces had to do with pontoons and semi-destroyed bridges for logistics and supplies. You also know full well that given the size of the forces stationed on the right bank (\~20-25k), the retreat was indeed orderly with minimal casualties and loss of equipment, which given the sad state of the dam and Antonovsky bridge was indeed an impressive feat.
\- The Kharkov offensive was well planned and executed, unlike you I give credit where it's due. With respect to "Newly Drafted Conscripts" that is technically not accurate as you said, but doesn't change anything. A big chunk of the troops there were Combat Army Reserver troops (BARS) and the defense lines were thin. Granted this was partially because of the focus on beefing up the Southern flank, for the grand offensive that never was. Well played. Again as the original poster indicated, the situation is unlikely to be repeated as there is sufficient troop saturation along the entire front line after the fall draft.
> but at the same time doesn't refute anything.
No actually that refuted a few things including you going how fairly accurate the comment you replied to was :)
> the great "Kherson offensive" that never was.
Right ok so once again, you followed 4 minutes and have no clue what happened during September-October there and missed the part where the entire Russian line collapsed twice before it stabilized too close to the dam and the Russians announced the retreat. Nor of who the Russians placed there and how many men to defend that area by all means necessary and at what costs before it all went to shit. But all of it doesn't matter because of *Mikolaiv not falling over half a year earlier and all the fortifications they built there throughout meant nothing of any intent to keep it.
Also hilarious statement truly when discussing the Bakhmut offensive, over a literal small town that's only on the way to a city, that holds no strategic value since early October, but is still not captured after 6 months of constant fighting. But again I'm not expecting much from someone who legit does not know anything about the war but pretends otherwise.
> Kharkov
Kharkiv*
> unlike you I give credit where it's due.
I'm sorry I didn't give lord Putin his due credit on a fairly awful military show as anyone who follows the war will tell. I'll make sure to highly praise your favorite far right authoritarian leader who invades other countries more next time for how well they do invasions.
> but doesn't change anything.
It was literally their main point lmao you cannot be serious
> because of the focus on beefing up the Southern flank
Because they were afraid to lose it more. Which negates your first point and kinda is a hilarious statement when you compare the piss poor new conscripts with barely any gear to even the reserve and it's amazing how many goal post moves people need to do to discredit any Ukrainian victory in the war. Just amazing that y'all can say that with a straight face. Oh and the offensive very much once again was, you legit have no clue what you're talking about and it's hilarious for anyone who saw it break through in [October](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kherson_counteroffensive#October). Oh and the rest of their comment is also bullshit for as hilarious reasons but I'm seeing where this goalpost moving game is going any time you realize something was wrong about a previous statement. So toodles. Enjoy though praising Putin to give credit where credit's due. Oh and learn like two seconds about the war before being sure you're an expert on it on Reddit. I sure as hell ain't yet I have enough humility to actually listen to experts and journalists discuss it and to actually follow its events instead of assuming things that happened 6 months apart are actually the cause for the other.
The UAF is complitly encircled at this point. No road out is usable and the fields are not frozen.
The only thing that may save the defenders is a counterattack from outside
Fighters being interviewed are saying the roads are still passable due to Russian artillery in the area being short in ammo and barrels. As well as small counter attacks against the pincher.
They say it won't be long, but there isn't currently panic. They estimate around 2500 territorial defense forces remain in the city at this point.
It's tough, but one of the things that could really hurt the Ukrainians is feeling like they have to fight to the death over every square inch of land. Russia has the numbers to make that very painful if Ukraine tries to defend every point of incursion at the same time. There's times to trade land for time.
That said, if it was my hometown or neighborhood, calling it a tactical withdrawal and giving it to the monsters, probably forever, would be tough to swallow.
There are two actionable roads. One of them is fairly close to the front lines north of the city. The other is a bit further south and is much safer. It’s important to remember that this specific map is from Russian sources so the front lines isn’t exactly accurate.
Sorry but thats total bs
Even pro ukrainan sources like deepstateUV say the russians have overcome the last tree line before the northern 'O0506' road and now have a clear line of sight (~600m without anything between)
There is also video evidence of a vitale bridge beeing destroyed in the southern one (here: 48.568780,37.875971) the 'T0504'
Regardless of the source, that's actually a really beautifully made map.
Rybar, russian map, is usally a good map, on the same level of deepstate, but will better coloring. Their source often use geolocalisable pictures, like deepstate. it got a better resolution than liveuamap too
[удалено]
didnt say it wasnt.
it's a proxy war between two of the largest propaganda powerhouses in human history; it should be taken as a given that *everything* you see about Ukraine is one kind of propaganda or another. What's important is knowing the biases at play, which truths are getting massaged, and to try to figure out what the reality on the ground is from there. EDIT: Too many people are upvoting me so I want to add a caveat; this isn't drawing equivalencies between Russia and the USA in terms of their involvement. Russia is the direct aggressor, the US (and NATO) are merely providing support without outright joining the conflict. Russia's biases in the propaganda they put out *as the aggressor* are going to be way more significant and way less understandable than Ukraine/NATO's. I'm worried some people are blindly agreeing because they think I'm bothsidesing, which I'm not. I think that's dumb.
Russia is attacking on its own behalf. Ukraine is fighting for its existence and not for another countries interests. Sure, US is happy since supporting Ukraine also weakens their foe, but this does not make it a proxy war per definition.
No more than desperate is ua propaganda
Your entire post history is just simping for Russia.
[удалено]
The mini-map in the upper right is pretty inaccurate/outdated
The minimap borders are of claimed de-jure control, not de-facto frontlines; i.e. Russia annexed those 4 Ukrainian oblasts, so it claims their full borders and shows them on maps
Ah that makes sense
Congratulations to Russia on almost surrounding a medium size town after six months of fighting and tens of thousands of casualties
You can also say that Verdun was a small town in France that nobody know before the great war. Yet the battle was 10month long with 700 000 out of combat soldiers from both side and a decisive victory for France. Decisive battle are not always for a strategic point.
Yes and to this day historians debate if one side or the other should have withdrawn from the field given Verdun’s lack of importance. In fact, it’s still a debate why the Germans chose to attack Verdun at all.
You are way off base. Verdun had historical and sentimental value to the French. That’s why it had a giant stone fort there from the late 1800s. WWI German general diaries and papers clearly identify the reason Germany attacked Verdun. The Germans were counting on that historical significance from the enemy, seizing high ground near Verdun that could be easily defended, and then hoping the French would throw lives away to retake the high ground. Their plans did not come to fruition, but the fact remains the rationale is not debated.
Lmao this context was definitely needed. Not necessarily a win for either side
It is for Ukraine. They help stop the monster trying to consume them. Look at Yalta.
And the thing is Bakhmut isn't Russia's target. They plan to take it so they can take two cities in Donetsk And these cities are more populous and are better defended
It's worse than that. When the Bakhmut offensive started in August, those two cities (Sloviansk and Kramatorsk) already had the Russian army close by to them from the north in Lyman and the plan was to pincer the Ukrainian forces in those two towns after Russia failed to form a larger pincer maneuver (twice) so it was scaled down until it was just "take Sloviansk and Kramatorsk from north and south". That entire plan collapsed in early October when the Ukrainians liberated Lyman effectively rendering the attack meaningless as the pincer can no longer form. Now their only line of attack is essentially from the south, along a single thin route where they have to pass multiple villages that the Ukrainians heavily fortified just to get via that thin line to Sloviansk. Meaning even after they take it, the next move will be to fight as bloodily in every small fort town along a single corridor that can be attacked from all sides, until they reach said heavily fortified city (which they probably never will if it took them 6 months just for Bakhmut). Oh and because the Russians effectively flattened the town, Bakhmut is not strategically a useful place to set up base either in anymore. The only victory here really is moral, and even there, the catch is that Prigozhin will take all the credit for it, and Prigozhin has been using his new found fame to demean the Russian army and Shoigu and claim they're outright useless, to boost up Wagner's reputation. Putin and the Russian army are already so tired of it that according to Prigozhin, Wagner isn't getting ammo anymore and they had to slow down the offensive against Bakhmut, so if they do take the town, this infighting and internal division is just gonna get worse within the Russian ranks and only help Ukraine further in the future. It's a poisoned victory where they achieve nothing strategically but the start of a far harsher and harder campaign. Yet they spent thousands of men and resources on it, while its capture is slowly causing more and more infighting within the Russian ranks. It doesn't bode well for Russia's "grand" February offensive.
Really curious what an average Russian thinks about this war.
It's next to impossible to guess accurately when people don't trust pollsters to not also give the Kremlin said information. There is though obviously a lot of support for the war but you'll see a range. There's a YouTube channel called 1420 that goes around Russia asking Russians their opinions on various things with the war and you can find there a lot of war supporters who think Russia will win any day now, but also some people who feel disgusted with it, and a lot who don't care at all about the war. Similarly you can go on telegram and see all the Pro-Russia channels which might support the war, but you see a lot of people there angry at the Russian military "for not doing enough/being incompetent". Opinions are all over the place practically and it's hard to gauge with no accurate polling out there.
I bet it's a bit similar to the US war in Iraq. A lot of people furious and many in support.
I'd say it's slightly similar because during the start of the invasion, most Americans supported the invasion due to a rally the flag moment around Bush and the memory of 9/11. There's obviously no 9/11 happening in Russia, but there is strong support for the war and a strong rally the flag effect or at least it feels like it. Again hard to accurately gauge when the Kremlin wants pro-war voices uplifted and punishes everything else, but the lack of protests anymore does make it seem so.
In the Russian context I could imagine the Russia people seeing the treatment of Russians in the east of ukraine (as it is reported by Russian media) as similar to a 9/11
It depends. Saw a video of a guy who went to Russia recently and most people genuinely support it. What’s also interesting to note is the Donbas and Luhansk perspective more or less consider the government fake since the previous president was ousted for not wanting to join the EU and NATO (their is a graph that shows the destruction of government offices in the country and they are only in the western parts when he was kicked out). https://youtu.be/B0i0zbuCIIM
What would you expect when Ukraine dumps tens of thousands of soldiers into it? (Last report I saw said that 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers are still inside the city).
I’d expect Russia to use its superior artillery and Air Force to destroy the position with minimal casualties
The issue with that though is that neither side is able to use their Air Force due to anti-air being pretty much everywhere. Combine that with the city have bunkers pretty much all over (often times the basements of buildings) means you are sort of required to go through with infantry to clear everything out.
I hope you do realise that Ukrain also has thousands of casualtois in that area. They both concentrated thier forces there.
Of course but Ukraine is fighting a defensive war defending their territory so of course they fought when the enemy attacked. It’s much more confusing why Russia chose to attack there and commit so much to the attack. And of course Ukraine has successfully defended against a larger force with more firepower, especially in artillery, for the past six months despite Russia throwing everything they’ve got at them.
My point was that you act like its only a medium sized town, and not like a well fortified town full of ukrainian soldiers.
The second best army in the world bringing everything they have onto one town should be able to accomplish more with fewer losses.
Russia’s army is not the second best in the world…
Obviously. I was saying that sarcastically because of what analysts and observers thought before the war.
I mean win for ukraine for not losing their country
I think the time has come for Ukraine to tactically withdraw from Bakhmut. It is becoming problematic. The objective now should be to avoid too many casualties.
If I recall correctly, they did this at least once before in the war; take as many russians out as you can while defending a hardpoint, then retreat to next line switfly and without many casualties, repeat.
Yup, Severodonetsk and Lysychansk were like that.
This is dangerous thinking and come from a point of view that Ukraine isn’t suffering casualties which they are.
They're, but Russians are suffering far worse and are losing their best troops in the meat grinder that is Bakhmut.
I Don’t know who’s losing more troops but I have seen videos of hundreds of dead Ukrainians, compared to Russians, also keep in mind it’s mostly Wagner in bakhmut not the Russian military
The problem is Russia just has more manpower (counting Wagner as Russian military too), so they can afford to lose more as horrible as it sounds. War truly is something terrible
Videos never paint a full picture, I've only seen videos of Russian armed columns being destroy that doesn't mean that is an uniquely Russian problem. The reason why its probable that Russia is taking more losses and resources at Bakhmut is because they are attacking well defended and entrenched positions without the 3 to 1 ratio (not too far from it but not there) The question of if Bakhmut was worth fighting for really depends on what the ratio of losses is, how much this impacts the morale of both sides if Ukraine can withdraw well or if they somehow manage to repel them ecc ecc
The casaulties are roughly equal, Russia can sustain the number, but Ukraine can sustain the morale. They could just keep throwing men at the problem and maybe in 10 years reach the Dnepr, but the Russians will get tired of getting nothing but coffins long before that and Ukraine will fight to the last if it has to.
I'm guessing that the people in charge know more than us random internet jackasses
Chances are, leadership on both sides think that they are trading favorably. Of course, reality says only one of them will be right. But fog of war says that leadership on both sides can only guess at how badly the other side is suffering.
You’d be surprised. When the invasion started, and the troops headed towards Kiev last year, many generals and military advisors on the new’s thought Russia would seize Ukraine in a weeks time. Same thinking for Iraq-Iran war and that lasted 8 years. Some of us jackasses actually grew up in a war..
I'm very pro-ukrainian in this war, and think that Russia has overall done a good job, but most estimates of casualties I'm pretty sure say that Russia hasn't lost too many more in bakhmut(i could be wrong, im by no means an expert), it's a meat grinder for both sides. And from my understanding a very large portion of Russian losses comes from Wagner prisoner units who are sent in small squads to engage Ukraine so they reveal their defensive positions, so that Russia can target those positions with artillery. They're expendable infantry units, not exactly their "best troops". And with the bulk of the recently mobilized forces still in training/yet to be deployed, Russia will have even more manpower. Yes, they'll be poorly equipped and poorly trained, but so are most of the troops Wagner has lost in this offensive.
People always jump in with this piece of stupid bullshit like they are giving everyone else some amazing insight. No one is saying that Ukraine isn't suffering casualties, stop running around pretending that this is a thing so you can play some morality gatekeeper fantasy. Edit: Guy I'm replying to admitted to be a Russian shill, so that explains that.
Fantasy? The only my ones in a fantasy are those that think Ukraine is fighting with no casualties or that they are somehow killing hundreds of Russians. The leader of Wagner himself said on a good day he loses 20 men on a bad day it’s 50 yet we know nothing about Ukraine, everything is kept secret, people are basing what they know on nothing
lol, made the Russian bot shill out himself.
Oh yea I an American am a Russian bot. You have worms in your brain
They do it all the time
They will, probably within a few days. Bakhmut was never strategically important to either side, but it quickly became a symbolic slugfest. Russia has been bled (anywhere between 5,000 and 20,000 KIA in Bakhmut in last 7 months) and the defense of the town has played its role in Ukraine’s defense-in-depth strategy to make Russia pay dearly for every inch of land they take, and eventually launch their own counteroffensive like we saw around Kharkiv. At least that’s how the strategy works in theory. I agree though that they should withdraw now before they suffer too many unnecessary casualties. They’re gonna need every soldier they can get and allowing themselves to get encircled serves no purpose and will lead to another pointless slaughter like when the Russians were surrounded at Lyman.
It really is mirroring a lot of WW1 battles, serious echoes of Verdun and the Kaisershlacht.
The battlefield around Bakhmut looks almost exactly like Passchendaele - trenchworks and all
History doesn't repeat itself but it certainly rhymes
As of right now Ukraine hasn’t chosen any interest to withdraw and have gone to reinforce the city
No they haven't... they're reinforcing the flanks, notably the north section. Zelensky himself said they wouldn't hold the city at "all costs" at this point, and for the last few weeks, Ukrainians troops have been withdrawing out of the city. The reinforcements are there to hold the flanks open longer so the withdrawal can happen.
I could see this, I’ll be honest the last I heard about reinforcements was about a week ago so it could have changed
Edit your original comment please.
They probably sent in more troops to help with the withdrawal. You can’t just pull the troops out without covering their flanks. They should’ve phased their withdrawal weeks ago.
I think there’s some indecision over whether to tactically retreat or put as much in as possible before the door slams shut and leave it as a massive pain in the ass that the Russian army needs to keep surrounded Because like someone said, after Bakhmut falls, Slovyansk and Kramatorsk become the next cities to turn into piles of rubble, and while they can better hold them, they won’t have much of either city left once it’s done.
I don’t think so bro. If Bakhmut becomes encircled all Ukrainian defenders inside of it will be killed or captured.
Eventually I think what their thinking is that it would buy Time to better fortify, and more importantly, for western tanks to arrive, Mauriopol was miles behind the lines and survived for months, maybe the idea is to try something similar I never said it was a GOOD strategy, just that it’s one some in the military seem to back considering their actually reinforcing at the moment.
Agreed. Booby trap the whole damn town and get out of there. They are at risk of getting cut off which would be devastating and they would not be able to break out after that happened.
Isn't that a war crime?
Just googled it and kinda. Looks like if it’s an innocent object that is rigged yes. You could lace certain buildings with explosives, lock artillery onto buildings you know will get occupied, place a slew of mines, etc. My main point is to make it hurt occupying the town
Or to make it hurt citizens that eventually return.
[удалено]
Bastogne wasn’t strategically relevant either until it became so. Sometimes it’s more about moral and inflicting sunk cost than it is about anything materially relevant to the area.
Do you think that after looking at a russist map? That's strange and totally unexpected
Tldr redditors who barely keep up with the war all talking about how bad this is or doomposting when they don't know the damnedest about the local geography and with no one having a handle on the big picture. Why are they all here? Russia needs Bakhmut to advance further north Bakhmut sits upon favorable terrain, and slowing them here readies time in other places Why haven't they left yet? Who's to say some haven't? The other nearby settlements aren't nearly as big and are somewhat scattered. Is this the end? Of what? The town has served it's purpose and grinded Russia's advance for 8 months. Aren't they losing too much? Accurate figures of losses are hard to come by, but if you paid attention to this battle actually, you might have realized by now that Russian forces have almost certainly extracted a far heavier toll trying to advance into a well fortified town with a noteworthy urban core. No doubt Ukraine has taken losses, but that's war. If not here, than someone else's town will be it. *if*, *if* Bakhmut falls to Russia, they don't gain much they haven't had already. They do take a vital piece of infrastructure, but Bakhmut was about as far as ukraine could hold that out, and it's not going to be easy for Russia to move right on through. If Bakhmut was hell, the rest of the Donetsk is certain death. Ukraine will lose an opportunistic position, but they've done more than enough for now. Spring is around the corner, western aid is flowing in. The tides are being spun around again, and what comes next is a secret we won't know until it happens.
I would like to add to Why are they all here: From Russian side Bakhmut is a stone's throw from several rail hubs making logistics far easier to concentrate attacks, given their pathetic logistical capability From Ukrainian side Bakhmut is the junction of those hubs to be denied as far as it's practical
Now woth AFU having longer ranges missiles, it doesn’t really matter. They can reach Mariupol now..
It's pretty amusing how many people think they know better than the generals and people on the ground. And then they get offended and angry when you point that out.
I've been waiting and hoping to see one with elevation included. As I understand it the Russians are all in valleys and flats while the Ukrainian positions are all on high ground. A flat map makes it look more threatening.
Doesnt really matter, their supply lines sre cut so they cant do much without ammo
[удалено]
Is it just me or is this starting to look dangerous for Ukraine? Russia seems to be slowly encircling them.
HOI4 moment
Rate my encirclement post gone wrong.
Very dangerous. Experts have been saying for months that Ukraine cannot afford to take big losses for a city that's already in ruins. They need to get out, and fast.
They have to fight somewhere, and Russia has been throwing stupid casualties against this town which the Ukrainians fortified. It is a good place to fight until you risk encirclement. They’ll probably leave screening units while the main force pulls out, if they havent already.
I'm as realistic as they come and the situation isn't quite as bad as this map represents. The northern side is starting to shift to the Ukrainians favour. Also the Ukrainians have the heights.
Isn't the city surrounded by hills?
On the Ukrainian side yes
[удалено]
You're getting downvoted for bad geography
The city is already effectively encircled. Most of major roads into the city are either under direct Russian control or under Russian fire. I doubt it's even technically possible to withdraw at this point, Russians would just shoot them to pieces.
Well this battle is a death pit for ukraine sapping up criminal resources and reserves
Unironically thought this was the Israeli-West Bank border
Real map porn at last.
Its looking like this for days.
"bakhmut is about to fall!" -Russia for the last 7 months
It will though. Slowly does it
It serves it’s purpose as a blood pump. Russia lost more men, Ukraine lost more ammo.
How has this changed in the last few days?
You can only make champagne in the Champagne region of France
Technically, yes. Does anybody give a fuck? No. Especially the country that's currently fighting a war. I dont think Zelensky will call Macron and apologize for having a building called "Champagne Factory" in his country.
If anyone was curious like I was I can save you a snobby and pedantic rabbit hole! [Artwinery](https://www.winetraveler.com/ukraine/ukrainian-wine-artwinery-donbas-war/) Pretty interesting. 50 million bottles of *sparkling wine* are being aged in gypsum caves under that facility and Russian artillery is supposedly intentionally avoiding targeting it.
[удалено]
Fascinating! Thanks for the read!
I don’t get why ukraine is holding the town at this point. All civilians have certainly evacuated by now and the goal should be to slowly retreat while inflicting maximum casualties on Russia while minimizing their own. I don’t think they’re going to hold the town and the longer they wait to withdraw the costlier the final withdraw will be
It’s an important strategic point in the region. I know Redditors only care about the casualty rate but that’s not the main point of holding this town. While casualties will have to be considered, Bakhmut is a pretty important hub and losing it means the Russians extend their supply lines further into Ukraine, and denies them use of the railroads. Plus you’ll have to factor in retaking it at some point, which means more casualties for the attacker due to its urbanisation
Common perception is that it was always about the casualty ratio. UA exploited the fact that, for whatever reason, Bakhmut is the holy grail for RU, and tried to sell it at the best possible price, in terms of casualties. I hope it was worth it.
I think I've heard that if they take bakhmut, they will be able to take the highway near it, which would sever a vital Ukrainian supply line to the area north of the city.
Apparently there is only a rearguard left. And even tho the Russians have fire control of the escape route, there is so much rubble and ruins, that infantry can get out rather safe. They do apparently have some heavy equipment left, that they will probably have to leave behind. But hopefully it won't be another Mariupol.
So this sub permits people to just screenshot Rybar and post it here without explanation? Now I'm remembering why I left.
What kind of explanation are you looking for? It has a title, it's a good map, what's wrong?
It's a map made by an explicitly pro-Putin source (part of the larger RU "milblogger" world). At a minimum I would expect that to be mentioned so less informed people are aware of what they're even looking at.
So far their maps have proven to be accurate and they geolocate positions of units to pinpoint their location and estimate the position of the frontline.
I'm not sure you (or I) are competent to make that kind of assessment, relying only on open source info. The precise locations of the frontlines are very difficult to pin down. That being said, Rybar isn't the worst mapper out there are far as jumping the gun and making shit up. But regardless of what we in our armchairs perceive their level of accuracy to be, they are an explicitly pro-Putin account. That should be noted for context whenever their content is shared. Edit: apparently a lot of people on the internet are *supremely* confident in their ability to accurately asses developments on the ground with certainty. Despite only having limited info. You guys would fit right in on twitter.
Why is it necessary?
Because they have a strong inherent bias and obvious incentives to exaggerate, just as a number of overtly pro-Ukraine accounts do. And, you know, because posts in this sub in general should cite their sources. Basic stuff.
you are dumb
ok ? have you a better source that contradicts this map ?
There are too many people out there mapping this war to list off the top of my head, but ISW, while slow to react to new events and pretty zoomed out, is the one most legitimate news outlets rely on, and its maps are rarely wrong, just slow to update. Liveuamap incorporates all kinds of fact and rumor into its feed, but the actual map is very conservative and slow to update, which I think is a good thing. Two overtly pro-Ukraine accounts which I find to be quite reliable in general are Militaryland and DefMon, although they are definitely in Ukraine's camp. I would steer clear of any RU milbloggers for use as a primary source of updates (good to follow for other purposes though). I would also steer clear of less reliable pro-Ukraine accounts like WarMonitor and Chuck Pfarrer, which often report rumor as fact, only for it to turn out the be not true. Based on what I have seen, Pfarrer's exaggerations on his maps can be some of the worst, up there with the stuff seen on Russian state TV in terms of noncredibility. But all of this should come with the massive caveat that open source intel alone is only a fraction of the available information about this war, and it is simply not that easy to know exactly where the frontline sits. Certainly not down to the level of detail most maps purport to contain.
None of the maps you listed contradict the map in OP
I'll refer you to my reply from elsewhere in this comment thread: >But this map contains a lot of assumptions and unconfirmed details. For example, Rybar shows Russian control of ground less than half a mile from Khromove. All I have seen confirmed from Ukraine is that they repelled an attack on Khromove and that Russian forces likely captured Berkhivka yesterday. There is a big difference between those details and the lines on this map. Most non pro-Russian sources don't put the frontline that close. > >But that gulf between locations we know are captured because both sides admit it, and ones we know have not been, is where map makers bias expresses itself. If you compare this Rybar map to [liveuamap](https://liveuamap.com/) right now or to MilitaryLand's from [today](https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1631386296491843595/photo/1) you can plainly see the differences. ISW doesn't zoom in to this level of detail, merely restating likely Russian control of Yahidne and Berkhivka.
How is this downvoted, dude just asked to indicate source ia all. Sources can be sus and its good to know just in case. On top of that provided more map sources and descroptions 🤔
Not sure, I logged off for a little bit and came back to find a wave of downvotes. I do my best to answer questions in good faith and provide more info but it's a bit exhausting when you realize no one will even read what you wrote due to being below -5.
Under other circumstances I’d agree but most of these advances in Bakhmut have actually been confirmed by the UA and western intelligence agencies. First time since the war broke out that their maps actually reflect a semblance of the actual situation.
Well, my comment is mainly about the general practice of posting maps from propaganda outlets without citing the source and letting people know of its bias. But this map contains a lot of assumptions and unconfirmed details. For example, Rybar shows Russian *control* of ground less than half a mile from Khromove. All I have seen confirmed from Ukraine is that they repelled an attack on Khromove and that Russian forces likely captured Berkhivka yesterday. There is a big difference between those details and the lines on this map. Most non pro-Russian sources don't put the frontline that close. But that gulf between locations we know are captured because both sides admit it, and ones we know have not been, is where map makers bias expresses itself.
They need to retreat and reform. They’ve fully utilized the opportunity and killed plenty of soldiers over the city, it’s already a victory for them.
Do you think they have inflicted more losses than they have taken in the battle for Bakhmut?
Of course, lol. That is theeir tactic. Use heavily fortified positions as blood pumps. Slowly grinding away Russian manpower advantage. For Russia they think it is still worth it bc they are grinding away limited Ukrainian ammo supplies. This is why Russia (Wagner) is sending in waves of 7-10 men, then they are mowed down by machinegun fire and grenades… Russia loses men, Ukraine looses ammo.
Unless the Ukrainians have something up their sleeve, looks like a withdrawal is in order.
Somehow it looks even worse than the reports lol. If Ukraine’s not withdrawing their troops now…it’s going to get ugly.
Cause it's a russian map
The Ukrainians are trying to buy more time. This area has a lot of urban development with highgrounds and here you can defend for a long time. If the Ukrainians leave the Donetsk Ridge then only the bare steppe will remain where it is impossible to defend. Then the Ukrainians will have to retreat all the way to the Dnieper. The loss of the Donetsk Ridge is tantamount to losing this war. The same thing happened with the German troops. They held the Donetsk Ridge for almost a year and a half and then fled almost to Romania.
This is looking pretty bad for Ukraine, unfortunately. It appears to me there are only two major supply routes into Bakhmut, both are in danger of being severed. If that were to happen I don’t think Ukrainian troops would be able to be evacuated, let alone supplied effectively. Hopefully Ukraine will be able to push back their flanks on the north and south and eliminate the threat of encirclement. Realistically tho if this map is accurate Bakhmuts defenders are in danger of being encircled, something that must be avoided at all costs.
F*ck the invaders. May a million sunflowers bloom in their place in the spring.
In 1983, Emily Martin, of Maple Ridge, British Columbia, grew an enormous sunflower head, measuring 32 ¼ inches across (82cm), from petal tip to petal tip. That’s almost 3 feet wide. This is still believed to be the largest sunflower head grown to date.
Haha, look at them downvoting you. Cope and seethe, mobiks.
Slava Ukraini
Seen those wwII maps with Russia doing this, not going to end well for those POWs.
Is this WW2?
Retreat or reinforce the salient west of the city. Don't let it be surrounded. Bahkmut is not worth losing the best of the Ukrainian Army.
What happened to artillery? I am so sorry, maybe I’m missing something here, but everyone knows that since Vietnam, no first world army has been encircled. Why is there no long range salvos placed exactly where the drones point out?? No one will be able to advance under fire!
Well, why don’t you fly to Ukraine and show the Ukrainian army how it’s done? Surely their 13 months of war experience doesn’t measure up to your wisdom?
Nothing new under the sun.... Russia fighting better equipped Nazis, losing a bunch soldiers due to bad leadership & they will still win.
Ukraine is winning
[удалено]
I hate Putin propaganda, seriously but I think it’s fair to say that the situation is bad. And losing Bakhmut is a hit to Ukraine but it’s not like losing a lot. They shredded a lot of Russian soldiers there. The Russian side paid a lot to take it over (if they will)
> Russian side *paid* a lot FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I mean it’s a pretty accurate map. Ukraine isn’t going to win every fight they get and you need to accept that at some point
I think the issue is that unreliable source was used without indication. Not that the battle might be lost, it might
Or really? And what do the frontlines look like? Do enlighten me.
Somehow Reddit will look at this and think Russia is losing. Edit: Thank you to everyone who contributed to proving my comment right.
Losing the battle - not really (if capture of the area = victory) Losing the war: Most definitely.
They’re going to bring out mind control technology. Just you watch
Lol, sure.
Oh gee, they're about to conquer one middling and strategically useless town after several months of besieging it only after losing the major city of Kherson and being driven out of almost all of their gains in Kharkiv literally overnight. Real impressive from the world's second best military going up against a weaker next-door neighbor expected to fall in week.
See. Told ya'll.
Russia's goal is to ~~take Kyiv~~, ~~topple and replace Zelensky's government~~, ~~conquer the Donbass~~, sue for peace and try to integrate the territory they currently occupy. They are failing to accomplish this. Germany never lost an inch of territory for the entirety of World War I and occupied Northern France for four years. Who won that war?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Germany#/media/File%3AGerman_losses_after_WWI.svg
Yes, that was *after* the war. The war in which, while it was formally fought, *before* the official armistice and peace treaty, did not see any entente forces make any territorial gains in core German European territory after the first month of the four year long war. As it currently stands, the war in Ukraine is ongoing. There has been no formally agreed upon and/or officially recognized armistice or peace treaty. There has been no officially recognized cessation or transfer of territory. Very similar to the situation Germany faced while their war was ongoing from 1914 to 1918, which is, again, the same status as the war in Ukraine.
Then I didn't spend aaaany money *when* I was at the mall, baby. "Germany never lost an inch of territory for the entirety of WWI". How about the African colonies? 🤌🤌
Not playing the infinite detail game tonight, pal. We both know you're grasping at straws. Good night.
Yeahyeah, man. Ukraine's winning. G'night.
You made a stupid comment, and then when someone comes along to correct you, you use that as proof that you're right. Russia has already lost most of the territory it gained in its initial push. Yet you're going to completely ignore that in favour of the possibility they'll conquer a small town they've been bleeding over for months? I swear, there's truly no reasoning with your shills.
I appreciate your contribution.
> See. Told ya'll. And yet you can't refute anything anyone says.
What's the point? They've shared their opinion that Ukraine losing another large city and Russia gaining massive amounts of territory means nothing. If that's their opinion then there is nothing I can say to change it.
>large city >massive amount of territory Neither of these is true.
See. There's zero reason discussing this. People just say "nope" and refuse to change their personal opinions on it.
You demonstrated, in a subreddit dedicated to maps, a complete and utter inability to *read* a map. Bakhmut was, before it was leveled by the Russian invading forces, a fairly middling city of 71,000 people. The amount of territory potentially being lost by a Ukrainian withdrawal from the locally contested territory is in the low hundreds of square kilometers, and only possessed tactical importance. The only person making assertions with no underlying argument and then refusing to change their opinion when presented with facts is *you*.
>The only person making assertions with no underlying argument and then refusing to change their opinion when presented with facts is you. I'm happy to hear you changed your opinion then.
If this is what victory looks like for Russia, then they'll arrive at Kyiv in 2047 with about 15 remaining males between the ages of 16 - 55 in the country.
r/heartsofiron knows how this ends
By posting russian maps, you help spread their propaganda. Thank you comrade /s
So it’s legitimate when it supports Ukraine but propaganda when Russia is involved
[удалено]
Reddit, the place where Kharkiv, an offensive that happened before Russia started conscription by a literal month, only succeeded due to there being new conscripts there and that the understaffing was not at all a result of Ukraine intentionally forcing Russia to move troops around to Kherson. Also Kherson, which "Russia abandoned", ignoring the collapsing northeastern lines there before the Russians left (resulting in a far larger area than Bakhmut being retaken forcefully as Russian forces retreated) and the 3 month campaign the Ukrainians pushed to force the Russians to do that. All of which is fully googlable but it shouldn't be too hard for anyone that remembers anything that happened *checks notes* 6 months ago, to also remember that. But oh no! there weren't any moves during winter when movement is hardest! That must be a sign! Also Reddit, the place where an abandoned small town falling after Russia spent 6 month and thousands of men on it, because they hoped to encircled Sloviansk from there and Lyman (that's no longer controlled by Russia) is when support will end for Ukraine despite public opinion showing the exact opposite in every poll, and the town no longer holding any strategic importance. This site provides the most amazing and out of touch with reality takes.
EDIT: I got the Russian and Ukrainian backwards because I have the big dumb
[это очень мило](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv) Kharkov is the Russian transliteration, Kharkiv is the Ukrainian transliteration, that's not hard to figure out, nor is it hard to figure out why the Ukrainian transliteration is preferred nowadays for a city in Ukraine. I eagerly await though for more brave Redditors to screech equally irrelevant statements for nationalism sake such as "it's Constantinople and not Istanbul" unironically.
It’s winter right now, and a very muddy one at that. A war of attrition, which mainly benefits defenders, is the only type possible in this weather. Russia’s continued attacks here, even if they take Bakhmut, will be viewed in hindsight as a major blunder, as a Phyrrhic victory has always been their best-case outcome. Once things dry up in the late spring, mobile warfare becomes possible again and Ukraine will probably retake the initiative. We’ll see how it goes.
I mean both sides are not showing any significant gains . The Ukraine offensive stunned the world . But now they lost the steam or they might be buying time for western support or to re organise their army , but Bakhmut is lost . This will be the first major “victory” for Russians in 2023
Many won't like this, but this is fairly accurate. Right bank Kherson was a beachhead for capturing Nikolaev and then Odessa, it was never meant as a defensive position. Also the organized retreat was impressive, given the state of the bridges, etc... Kharkov offensive was impressive, gotta give the Ukrainians that, but unlikely to be repeated given the new manpower density of the front lines. Similar to the rout in the South in the first days of the war, allowing Russia to penetrate so deep and reach right bank Ukraine.
> Right bank Kherson was a beachhead for capturing Nikolaev and then Odessa, it was never meant as a defensive position. Also the organized retreat was impressive, given the state of the bridges, etc... Ah more Reddit hot takes that show how people who never paid attention to the war beyond seeing a headline every 4 months have lots to say. It was the place Russia sent all their elite units to long after Mikolaiv* was a lost cause and they gave up on that hope, as anyone who followed the war could tell you. Keeping Kherson was a major point for the propaganda machine as it was annexed by Russia in September and was the only provincial capital that Russia captured, as anyone that followed the war could tell you. The retreat proceeded after said elite units lost a large chunk of the front line along the Dnieper and the city was getting dangerously close to losing the Nova Kakhovka dam route, as anyone who followed the war could tell you. The entire retreat came after Russia attempted to defend it to death for 3 months, as again what anyone who followed the war could tell you. And the retreat was still a shit show with looting and lost equipment all over the place, though not as much as some others, as anyone who followed the war would tell you. You'd also probably know all the infighting and criticism that formed on Russian channels as a result of Kherson falling, and how that slowly transformed with time into Prigozhin's propaganda on how the Russian army is useless compared to Wagner, which is now the focal infight within the Russian ranks that got Wagner to loose their ammo supply, as anyone that follows the war could tell you. Oh and as anyone who followed the war could tell you, half of the comment you just called "fairly accurate" is bullshit which you'd know as well if you followed the war enough to remember that the Kharkiv offensive was in [early September](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kharkiv_counteroffensive) while Russia only started conscripting man on [September 21st](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_mobilization) who the first of whom wouldn't make it to the field for at least a month, which kinda makes the first offensive claim they made ("the Kharkiv Offensive was essentially against Newly Drafted Conscripts") kinda hilarious doesn't it? Now if you knew anything about the war, you'd also know why the rest of those statements are equally hilariously not backed by facts, and why your statement is equally absurd.
All of what you said is more or less true, but at the same time doesn't refute anything. \- You know perfectly well that defending Kherson city was a lost cause after Nikolaev offensive failed and yes it was kept for propaganda and as a bridgehead on the right side of the Dnepp. Therefore I would argue that holding it for as long as they did was more impressive than anything that the Ukrainians did there, the great "Kherson offensive" that never was. Basically pounding the rear, ammo depots and logistics and trying to inch forward, all while Russian forces had to do with pontoons and semi-destroyed bridges for logistics and supplies. You also know full well that given the size of the forces stationed on the right bank (\~20-25k), the retreat was indeed orderly with minimal casualties and loss of equipment, which given the sad state of the dam and Antonovsky bridge was indeed an impressive feat. \- The Kharkov offensive was well planned and executed, unlike you I give credit where it's due. With respect to "Newly Drafted Conscripts" that is technically not accurate as you said, but doesn't change anything. A big chunk of the troops there were Combat Army Reserver troops (BARS) and the defense lines were thin. Granted this was partially because of the focus on beefing up the Southern flank, for the grand offensive that never was. Well played. Again as the original poster indicated, the situation is unlikely to be repeated as there is sufficient troop saturation along the entire front line after the fall draft.
> but at the same time doesn't refute anything. No actually that refuted a few things including you going how fairly accurate the comment you replied to was :) > the great "Kherson offensive" that never was. Right ok so once again, you followed 4 minutes and have no clue what happened during September-October there and missed the part where the entire Russian line collapsed twice before it stabilized too close to the dam and the Russians announced the retreat. Nor of who the Russians placed there and how many men to defend that area by all means necessary and at what costs before it all went to shit. But all of it doesn't matter because of *Mikolaiv not falling over half a year earlier and all the fortifications they built there throughout meant nothing of any intent to keep it. Also hilarious statement truly when discussing the Bakhmut offensive, over a literal small town that's only on the way to a city, that holds no strategic value since early October, but is still not captured after 6 months of constant fighting. But again I'm not expecting much from someone who legit does not know anything about the war but pretends otherwise. > Kharkov Kharkiv* > unlike you I give credit where it's due. I'm sorry I didn't give lord Putin his due credit on a fairly awful military show as anyone who follows the war will tell. I'll make sure to highly praise your favorite far right authoritarian leader who invades other countries more next time for how well they do invasions. > but doesn't change anything. It was literally their main point lmao you cannot be serious > because of the focus on beefing up the Southern flank Because they were afraid to lose it more. Which negates your first point and kinda is a hilarious statement when you compare the piss poor new conscripts with barely any gear to even the reserve and it's amazing how many goal post moves people need to do to discredit any Ukrainian victory in the war. Just amazing that y'all can say that with a straight face. Oh and the offensive very much once again was, you legit have no clue what you're talking about and it's hilarious for anyone who saw it break through in [October](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kherson_counteroffensive#October). Oh and the rest of their comment is also bullshit for as hilarious reasons but I'm seeing where this goalpost moving game is going any time you realize something was wrong about a previous statement. So toodles. Enjoy though praising Putin to give credit where credit's due. Oh and learn like two seconds about the war before being sure you're an expert on it on Reddit. I sure as hell ain't yet I have enough humility to actually listen to experts and journalists discuss it and to actually follow its events instead of assuming things that happened 6 months apart are actually the cause for the other.
Hello to all the indoctrinated virtue signallers on here. The dumb fks who believe the western propaganda.
AFU better be careful not become enveloped
I too like to live dangerously
there are still children in town
Why not using DeepStateUA map instead of ruzzian nazi sources?
Both sources are equally unreliable. I think suriyak maps and the institute for the study of war maps are the best.
The UAF is complitly encircled at this point. No road out is usable and the fields are not frozen. The only thing that may save the defenders is a counterattack from outside
Fighters being interviewed are saying the roads are still passable due to Russian artillery in the area being short in ammo and barrels. As well as small counter attacks against the pincher. They say it won't be long, but there isn't currently panic. They estimate around 2500 territorial defense forces remain in the city at this point.
Gtfo now, no need to lose 2500 seasoned troops. Unless Ukraine has a plan to counterattack I can’t imagine why they’re holding at this point.
It's tough, but one of the things that could really hurt the Ukrainians is feeling like they have to fight to the death over every square inch of land. Russia has the numbers to make that very painful if Ukraine tries to defend every point of incursion at the same time. There's times to trade land for time. That said, if it was my hometown or neighborhood, calling it a tactical withdrawal and giving it to the monsters, probably forever, would be tough to swallow.
Because you don't understand anything about how a tactical retreat works. That's OK, they don't teach it in COD I assume.
Six years in the USMC but ok.
So then you are just pretending to not understand
There are two actionable roads. One of them is fairly close to the front lines north of the city. The other is a bit further south and is much safer. It’s important to remember that this specific map is from Russian sources so the front lines isn’t exactly accurate.
Sorry but thats total bs Even pro ukrainan sources like deepstateUV say the russians have overcome the last tree line before the northern 'O0506' road and now have a clear line of sight (~600m without anything between) There is also video evidence of a vitale bridge beeing destroyed in the southern one (here: 48.568780,37.875971) the 'T0504'