Battle of Bakhmud won by Russia

Oh, Bakhmut is super-duper important. Second only to Kiev maybe.
Kiev is important for different reasons.

But Russia is not destroying Kiev for reasons on which we can only guess?

I would say there's an unspoken reason that hasn't been made public. Likely being a US counter attack on Moscow, then Washington, etc.
 
Russia is claiming that taking Badmuht will be a big advantage for conducting the war deep into the Ukraine. Others say it's just a symbolic loss for the Ukraine.
Does anyone have any reliable information of the facts?
.

Bakhmut is a "mining town" ... Ukraine is also rich in titanium, iron ore, and zirconium.
Russia has already captured the salt mines in or around Bakhmut.

soledar-salt-mine.jpg


Some articles suggest the salt mines around Bakhmut are also where the Ukrainians stored their arsenal of weapons ...
After the fall of the Soviet Union ... And where all the weapons they were passing out to Ukrainians came from.
As recent as January the Wall Street Journal indicated the Wagner Group considered the salt mines at Bakhmut as "Center Stage" in the War.

.
 
Last edited:
.

Bakhmut is a "mining town" ... Ukraine is also rich in titanium, iron ore, and zirconium.
Russia has already captured the salt mines in or around Bakhmut.

soledar-salt-mine.jpg


Some articles suggest the salt mines around Bakhmut are also where the Ukrainians stored their arsenal of weapons ...
After the fall of the Soviet Union ... And where all the weapons they were passing out to Ukrainians came from.
As recent as January the Wall Street Journal indicated the Wagner Group considered the salt mines at Bakhmut as "Center Stage" in the War.

.
Natural resources are not of any importance to the Russians at this point.

You've offered a perhaps valid point if there are arms and ammunition at risk of Russia taking Bakmuht.

Do you have any explanation for why Russia is not destroying Kiev? It could also be because it would have no strategic gain, and of course would be an attack on civilians.
 
Natural resources are not of any importance to the Russians at this point.

You've offered a perhaps valid point if there are arms and ammunition at risk of Russia taking Bakmuht.

Do you have any explanation for why Russia is not destroying Kiev? It could also be because it would have no strategic gain, and of course would be an attack on civilians.
.

Well ... You can pretend resources don't mean anything ... The Wagner Group disagrees with you ...
Said so ... And are spending resources fighting and dying for it.

There are multiple articles that span across a greater time period than what the "news" is trying to push ...
And ... To some extent ... One can make sense of things.

And no ... I have no idea why Russia doesn't want Kyiv at the moment ...
Haven't tried to figure it out ... And won't until it becomes a target.

.
 
Russia is claiming that taking Badmuht will be a big advantage for conducting the war deep into the Ukraine. Others say it's just a symbolic loss for the Ukraine.
Does anyone have any reliable information of the facts?
Yes, Russia has been unsuccessful in its current efforts to capture Bakhmut, and because Russian casualties are running so high and Russian ammunition supplies are running so low, Ukraine has decided to reinforce its positions in and around Bakhmut in order to bleed the Russian forces dry.
 
.

Well ... You can pretend resources don't mean anything ... The Wagner Group disagrees with you ...
Said so ... And are spending resources fighting and dying for it.


.
Did they? You could be misinterpreting their motives and Russia's motive? Pursue the question further if you like?

I'll just make the point that natural resources are not the immediate cause in the heat of battle, but are a consideration.

We can safely say that natural resources are the entire reason for the war overall.
 
Yes, Russia has been unsuccessful in its current efforts to capture Bakhmut, and because Russian casualties are running so high and Russian ammunition supplies are running so low, Ukraine has decided to reinforce its positions in and around Bakhmut in order to bleed the Russian forces dry.
Both you and utopa have a new and fresh spin on the situation, and so thanks for that!

What is your opinion(s) on the strategic importance of Bakmuht?
 
Did they? You could be misinterpreting their motives and Russia's motive? Pursue the question further if you like?
.

They could be playing Yahtzee and drinking Jägermeister as well ... But probably aren't ... :auiqs.jpg:
I don't need to pretend they are lying ... Just to suit something that isn't supported by anything that was found.

.
 
I'll just make the point that natural resources are not the immediate cause in the heat of battle, but are a consideration.

We can safely say that natural resources are the entire reason for the war overall.
.

You didn't ask about the entire war.

You commented on the Battle for Bakhmut ... It's strategic value ... And specifically asked for facts in that matter.
Sorry if you don't like them ... :auiqs.jpg:

.
 
.

You didn't ask about the entire war.

You commented on the Battle for Bakhmut ... It's strategic value ... And specifically asked for facts in that matter.
Sorry if you don't like them ... :auiqs.jpg:

.
If you have nothing to say about the 'strategic' value of Bakmuht then I'm going to leave this discussion.
Bakmuht is not important to either side for strategic reasons. Are you aware of what 'strategic' means?
 
If you have nothing to say about the 'strategic' value of Bakmuht then I'm going to leave this discussion.
Bakmuht is not important to either side for strategic reasons. Are you aware of what 'strategic' means?
.

I already posted more about the strategic value of Bakhmut than you have offered ...
Carry your ass ... And quit talking shit that amounts to nothing ... :auiqs.jpg:

.
 
.

I already posted more about the strategic value of Bakhmut than you have offered ...
Carry your ass ... And quit talking shit that amounts to nothing ... :auiqs.jpg:

.
If you have nothing more to offer then we can be finished with each other.
 
If you have nothing more to offer then we can be finished with each other.
.

You don't need to tell me ... You haven't posted anything worthwhile ... Only assumptions based in nothing but speculation.
Just carry your ass ... :auiqs.jpg:

.
 
Here's Russia's opinion on the strategic importance in case anybody wants to know?

.

Here is Newsweek's article on the Strategic Value of Bakhmut ...
And it includes this quote about what little value analysts think it has ... Before indicating the same analysts think it could be the stepping-stone
for capturing the entire Donbas Region and ultimately cost Ukraine the War.

"Many analysts say Bakhmut holds little value itself in strategic terms, but nonetheless believe Russia will use the city as a stepping stone toward its goal of capturing the entire Donbas region—one of Putin's stated war aims when he launched his invasion last February."

It's like they don't even want to say it ... But do anyway ... :auiqs.jpg:

.
 
right link:

Starting at 27:20 and going on for the 'two' following questions and answers, the strategic value of Bakmuht explained by Ritter.

i would advise the whole video for a learning experience.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top