1. #29801
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    worn out and having made a (tiny) breakthrough are not mutually exclusive in any way. Considering the severity of the fighting both sides there not being very worn out would be highly unlikely.
    What happens if the Russians lose Bahkmut, though? Remember that although he's evil as fuck, the Wagner leader believably explained the strategic importance of maintaining Bahkmut to the Russians - and how fucked they are if they can't.
    "Truth...justice, honor, freedom! Vain indulgences, every one(...) I know what I want, and I take it. I take advantage of whatever I can, and discard that which I cannot. There is no room for sentiment or guilt."

  2. #29802
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    Just realised, those T-55 and T-54 tank designs are older than putin himself. That country is really a joke.
    Those are literal WW2 tanks, as in designed during WW2.
    Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.

    "People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988

  3. #29803
    Herald of the Titans Iphie's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    2,855
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    What happens if the Russians lose Bahkmut, though? Remember that although he's evil as fuck, the Wagner leader believably explained the strategic importance of maintaining Bahkmut to the Russians - and how fucked they are if they can't.
    1. To lose something you must first have it, this is not the case.
    2. Prig has already said if shit goes tits up he'll just leave if he doesn't get support.
    3. there are rumours prig is going to focus on Africa in any case due to feeling betrayed.
    4. the MoD forces are apparently moving to the Kreminna-Lyman direction.

    5. Absolutely unconfirmed and blatantly insane: prig apparently wrote a letter to the US government offering to go focus on something else...for the right price and support.

  4. #29804
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    What happens if the Russians lose Bahkmut, though? Remember that although he's evil as fuck, the Wagner leader believably explained the strategic importance of maintaining Bahkmut to the Russians - and how fucked they are if they can't.
    they move back to their next positions, and have a propaganda loss.

    Prig is already being told to fuck off and focus on his africa shenanigans (i.e looting african metals for 2 billion a year?)

  5. #29805
    so do you people really undermine the importance of Bahkmut? I assumed if the Russians lost this one, they would essentially be a decapitated army (i.e total inhouse chaos and defeated, but still existing)
    "Truth...justice, honor, freedom! Vain indulgences, every one(...) I know what I want, and I take it. I take advantage of whatever I can, and discard that which I cannot. There is no room for sentiment or guilt."

  6. #29806
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    so do you people really undermine the importance of Bahkmut? I assumed if the Russians lost this one, they would essentially be a decapitated army (i.e total inhouse chaos and defeated, but still existing)
    Bahkmut is utterly unimportant. It has no strategic value and the only reason its in the news is because its where Wagner decided to have their main thrust and they are the only ones that have made any progress at all by throwing waves of meat at the problem.

    Outside of PR the cost of losing Bahkmut is the same as long anywhere else along the front line. It risks a breakthrough and who knows how the Russians will be able to recover from that. If they are organised its fine, if not then the entire front could crumble.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  7. #29807
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    so do you people really undermine the importance of Bahkmut? I assumed if the Russians lost this one, they would essentially be a decapitated army (i.e total inhouse chaos and defeated, but still existing)
    bahkmut for the russians means they can threaten Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. Ukraine staying there means they can inflict heavy attrition to Russian forces and protect Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. It really isn't that important in terms of location, but its become a propaganda war.

    The Russians have hyped it up and now they have to take or they do look stupid (which is a really bad way to wage a war) and they would have to take it at some point anyway.

    The Ukranians don't really want to lose it for propaganda reasons, they can inflict heavy damage to whatever russia chucks in there and they are sort of saying 'we could go back to our next postions, and then if that goes badly go back to our next positions and eventually go back to kyiv...but why bother with going all the way back to kyiv why not make out stand here?'

  8. #29808
    Beyond the propaganda value, Bakhmut is a railroad junction.

  9. #29809
    the reason I understandably have skepticism about its supposed iffy importance is that even Ukrainian intel has stated the fighting in Bahkmut is the bloodiest and most awful for a while now, with a ridiculous mortality rate relative to elsewhere.

    Why would Ukraine fight so hard for this place? I doubt they've suffered minor losses with all that's been said.
    "Truth...justice, honor, freedom! Vain indulgences, every one(...) I know what I want, and I take it. I take advantage of whatever I can, and discard that which I cannot. There is no room for sentiment or guilt."

  10. #29810
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    the reason I understandably
    "Understandably" my butt!

  11. #29811
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    the reason I understandably have skepticism about its supposed iffy importance is that even Ukrainian intel has stated the fighting in Bahkmut is the bloodiest and most awful for a while now, with a ridiculous mortality rate relative to elsewhere.

    Why would Ukraine fight so hard for this place? I doubt they've suffered minor losses with all that's been said.
    your wondering why the fighting is most intense at the main pressure point of the Russian attack?

    If they were not fighting this hard at Bahkmut they would be fighting this hard at whatever other point Russia chooses to attack at. The intensity wouldn't change, just the location.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  12. #29812
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post

    Why would Ukraine fight so hard for this place? I doubt they've suffered minor losses with all that's been said.
    Because if the Russians want to throw countless lives and endless resources into a completely meaningless objective it's convenient for the Ukrainians to fight there instead of somewhere where there's something worthwhile to lose.

    Losing Bakhmut would ultimately not change anything strategically for Ukraine, on the other hand holding Bakhmut would kill countless Russians and humiliate them.

    This is not rocket science, this has been repeated over and over and over and over and over again over the last 5 months. Like on what planet were you? The Russians have no greater plan here, no special strategic insight, no hidden card, nothing. They are just doing what they have been doing for the past 13 months, stupid shit.

    What western commentators got wrong, again, was believing that the Russians would eventually take Bakhmut, but Ukrainians in a typical Ukrainian fashion seem to have held onto it, despite every expectation. With other words, 5 months of fighting and countless losses later, Russia once again...FAILED.

  13. #29813
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    the reason I understandably have skepticism about its supposed iffy importance is that even Ukrainian intel has stated the fighting in Bahkmut is the bloodiest and most awful for a while now, with a ridiculous mortality rate relative to elsewhere.

    Why would Ukraine fight so hard for this place? I doubt they've suffered minor losses with all that's been said.
    Because that's where they get to kill the most russians and destroy the most russian equipment. D'uh.

  14. #29814
    Herald of the Titans enigma77's Avatar
    3+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Because that's where they get to kill the most russians and destroy the most russian equipment. D'uh.
    an honorable thing in and of itself

  15. #29815
    Quote Originally Posted by enigma77 View Post
    an honorable thing in and of itself
    Let me be clear so nobody gets to bitch at me about this: I meant russian invaders. I'm not advocating for the genocide of all russians.

  16. #29816
    Herald of the Titans Iphie's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    2,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Let me be clear so nobody gets to bitch at me about this: I meant russian invaders. I'm not advocating for the genocide of all russians.
    Going soft in your old day? (DW I know you never advocated it, but I know of a fair few Finns who make no such distinction.)

  17. #29817
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    Going soft in your old day? (DW I know you never advocated it, but I know of a fair few Finns who make no such distinction.)
    I've been infracted for less.

  18. #29818
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,586
    I think most people would agree that any russian currently in Bahkmut is fair game. I suspect an extreme lack of peaceful civilian interaction left in that particular area.

  19. #29819
    So Prigozhin went fully against the Kremlin narrative it seems. Reporting that there's no NATO in Ukraine, no Nazis. Just Ukrainians and volunteers. Also that those in power were deluded if they ever thought NATO wouldn't supply Kyiv with weapons to defend itself.

  20. #29820
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallisto View Post
    So Prigozhin went fully against the Kremlin narrative it seems. Reporting that there's no NATO in Ukraine, no Nazis. Just Ukrainians and volunteers. Also that those in power were deluded if they ever thought NATO wouldn't supply Kyiv with weapons to defend itself.
    I’ve seen this rumor, but haven’t found a primary source. Ya got some of that good stuff?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •