After Bakhmut [Ukraine War] | The American Conservative

[Phoenyx]

Found this article via antiwar.com today, and thought it was well worth the read. Thinking others may also find it educational and perhaps worthy of a comment or 2. Quoting the introduction of it...

**
Russia turned Bakhmut into the graveyard of Ukrainian military power. What comes next?

Douglas Macgregor [U.S. Colonel, retired]

May 23, 2023

Until the fighting begins, national military strategy developed in peacetime shapes thinking about warfare and its objectives. Then the fighting creates a new logic of its own. Strategy is adjusted. Objectives change. The battle for Bakhmut illustrates this point very well.

When General Sergey Vladimirovich Surovikin, commander of Russian aerospace forces, assumed command of the Russian military in the Ukrainian theater last year, President Vladimir Putin and his senior military advisors concluded that their original assumptions about the war were wrong. Washington had proved incurably hostile to Moscow’s offers to negotiate, and the ground force Moscow had committed to compel Kiev to negotiate had proved too small.

Surovikin was given wide latitude to streamline command relationships and reorganize the theater. Most importantly, Surovikin was also given the freedom of action to implement a defensive strategy that maximized the use of stand-off attack or strike systems while Russian ground forces expanded in size and striking power. The Bakhmut “Meatgrinder” was the result.

When it became clear that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government regarded Bakhmut as a symbol of Ukrainian resistance to Russian military power, Surovikin turned Bakhmut into the graveyard of Ukrainian military power. From the fall of 2022 onward, Surovikin exploited [Zelensky's] obsession with Bakhmut to engage in a bloody tug-of-war for control of the city. As a result, thousands of Ukrainian soldiers died in Bakhmut and many more were wounded.

Surovkin’s performance is reminiscent of another Russian military officer: General Aleksei Antonov. As the first deputy chief of the Soviet general staff, Surovikin was, in Western parlance, the director of strategic planning. When Stalin demanded a new summer offensive in a May 1943 meeting, Antonov, the son and grandson of imperial Russian army officers, argued for a defensive strategy. Antonov insisted that Hitler, if allowed, would inevitably attack the Soviet defenses in the Kursk salient and waste German resources doing so.

Stalin, like Hitler, believed that wars were won with offensive action, not defensive operations.

Stalin was unmoved by Soviet losses. Antonov presented his arguments for the defensive strategy in a climate of fear, knowing that contradicting Stalin could cost him his life. To the surprise of Marshals Aleksandr Vasilevsky and Georgy Zhukov, who were present at the meeting, Stalin relented and approved Antonov’s operational concept. The rest, as historians say, is history.
**

Full article:
After Bakhmut | The American Conservative

[Cypress]

Found this article via antiwar.com today, and thought it was well worth the read.

Douglas Macgregor [U.S. Colonel, retired]

After Bakhmut | The American Conservative

I do not think Douglas Macgregor's military opinion should be trusted at all. He thought invading Iraq in 2003 was a great idea, and he even thought we should have gone to Baghdad in 1991 - and he is obviously not "anti-war".

In 2004, Douglas Macgregor stated that he strongly supported war against Iraq, and regretted that the US had not enacted regime change in Iraq in 1991

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug...itary%20forces.

[Phoenyx]

I do not think Douglas Macgregor's military opinion should be trusted at all. He thought invading Iraq in 2003 was a great idea, and he even thought we should have gone to Baghdad in 1991 - and he is obviously not "anti-war".

I never claimed he was anti-war. I simply pointed out that I found his article by checking out anti-war.com's website and seeing a link to it there.

I certainly don't think invading Iraq in 2003 was a great idea, but the subject of this thread isn't U.S.'s war in Iraq in 2003, it's of the Ukraine war that's currently ongoing. When it comes to this war, I think his points are quite good.

If there's anything you disagree with in regards to the article that is the basis of this thread, I'd certainly like to hear any constructive criticisms you may have.

[Cypress]

I never claimed he was anti-war. I simply pointed out that I found his article by checking out anti-war.com's website and seeing a link to it there.

I certainly don't think invading Iraq in 2003 was a great idea, but the subject of this thread isn't U.S.'s war in Iraq in 2003, it's of the Ukraine war that's currently ongoing. When it comes to this war, I think his points are quite good.

If there's anything you disagree with in regards to the article that is the basis of this thread, I'd certainly like to hear any constructive criticisms you may have.

You need to pick someone with better judgement about strategic military matters. This guy thought invading Iraq was great idea

[Phoenyx]

I never claimed he was anti-war. I simply pointed out that I found his article by checking out anti-war.com's website and seeing a link to it there.

I certainly don't think invading Iraq in 2003 was a great idea, but the subject of this thread isn't U.S.'s war in Iraq in 2003, it's of the Ukraine war that's currently ongoing. When it comes to this war, I think his points are quite good.

If there's anything you disagree with in regards to the article that is the basis of this thread, I'd certainly like to hear any constructive criticisms you may have.

You need to pick someone with better judgement about strategic military matters. This guy thought invading Iraq was great idea

I don't understand why you think the fact that he supported the 2003 Iraq war means that anything he's said or done since then shouldn't matter. Did you even read the quote of the article I put up in the opening post, or did you just look at the fact that it was written by Macgregor and call it a day?

[anonymoose]

. Surovikin turned Bakhmut into the graveyard of Ukrainian military power.

Then I guess you could also say ,” Following the launch of the Kherson counteroffensive in Southern Ukraine in late August, Ukrainian forces began a second counteroffensive in early September in Kharkiv Oblast, in Eastern Ukraine which was the graveyard of Russian military power.”
Except Kherson and Kharkiv are much larger prizes won by Ukraine than Bakhmut is . Ukraine got a knight and bishop while Russia got a pawn.
The article makes it sound like Russia has already won the war and achieved all its objectives. One big problem is nobody , including Russia, really knows what Russias victory looks like now.
Putin’s initial objective was to overthrow the government in Kyiv, demilitarize Ukraine and stop NATO expansion.
Well Ukraine’s government is still intact with Zelenskyy way more popular than before the war but NATO has now doubled its border with Russia and Ukraine is the most militarized country per capita in the world.
I will admit, it’s unrealistic for Ukraine to achieve their stated victory.

[Phoenyx]

Found this article via antiwar.com today, and thought it was well worth the read. Thinking others may also find it educational and perhaps worthy of a comment or 2. Quoting the introduction of it...

**
Russia turned Bakhmut into the graveyard of Ukrainian military power. What comes next? [snip]

Then I guess you could also say ,” Following the launch of the Kherson counteroffensive in Southern Ukraine in late August, Ukrainian forces began a second counteroffensive in early September in Kharkiv Oblast, in Eastern Ukraine which was the graveyard of Russian military power.”

Not from what I've read. I read that Russia exchanged land for keeping its troops safe at the time, which is the exact opposite of what Ukraine did in Bakhmut for 9 months- wasting thousands of Ukrainian troops to try to hold a city that they were doomed to lose anyway.

Except Kherson and Kharkiv are much larger prizes won by Ukraine than Bakhmut is.

Kherson is a great example of Russia's wisdom of exchanging land to ensure not getting into incredibly costly losses in personnel and material. From one of the articles linked to by Mr. Macgregor:

**
On this topic, let me say one thing, which I’ve been asked about recently several times in comments. Regarding the potential for AFU’s storming of the Dnieper, whether to gain a foothold near the Kherson region or to take ZNPP plant. People are wondering how likely/possible such an operation is.

The most important and basic thing to understand regarding this is: to get to the other side of any river in general is the easy part. Anyone can do this, whether they sustain losses or not. The hard part is subsequently resupplying that new foothold, forward position, etc., to such a degree that you can actually hold it indefinitely. Recall that this was the main reason Russia withdrew from all of Kherson region in general was the very tenuous supply situation which could be cut at any moment.
**

Source:
SITREP 5/20/23: Bakhmut Falls, Artemovsk Rises. What's Next? | simplicius76.substack.com

Ukraine got a knight and bishop while Russia got a pawn.

Continuing your chess analogy, I think you're confusing space on the board for actual pieces. Russia's holding on to its actual pieces as much as possible. Land can be gained and lost but at the end of the day, the side that wins is the side that has the strongest military force by the end of it. It may well be that Russia underestimated the resistance of the Ukrainian military at the beginning, not to mention the massive amount of foreign aid Ukraine received from western nations, but at this point I think it's clear that it's Ukraine and the west that vastly underestimated Russia's will to win this war, not to mention its capability of doing so.

The article makes it sound like Russia has already won the war and achieved all its objectives. One big problem is nobody , including Russia, really knows what Russias victory looks like now.

First of all, in response to your first sentence, I'd like to say that I didn't get that impression from Macgregor's article at all. In response to your second, I think you might be right to some extent. I do believe, however, that Russia would very much like a peaceful settlement to this conflict, the sooner the better. That doesn't mean they will accept any peace proposal- I still remember Ukraine's "offer" of peace if Russia just left the disputed territories completely. I think what -might- be acceptable is if Russia were allowed to keep the territory it has now.

Putin’s initial objective was to overthrow the government in Kyiv, demilitarize Ukraine and stop NATO expansion. Well Ukraine’s government is still intact with Zelenskyy way more popular than before the war but NATO has now doubled its border with Russia and Ukraine is the most militarized country per capita in the world.
I will admit, it’s unrealistic for Ukraine to achieve their stated victory.

The idea that Putin's initial objective was to overthrow Ukraine's government in Kyiv is debateable. I agree that Russia did list one of its goals for a peaceful settlement to be the demilitarization or at least the de nazification of Ukraine's military. However, such concepts are fairly vague. Allowing Russia to keep the territory it's gained would be something that's far more concrete and something I suspect they might settle for.

I'm glad we agree that Ukraine's goals of retaking the Donbass Republics and even Crimea is unrealistic if not downright impossible.

[Lightbringer]

Not from what I've read. I read that Russia exchanged land for keeping its troops safe at the time, which is the exact opposite of what Ukraine did in Bakhmut for 9 months- wasting thousands of Ukrainian troops to try to hold a city that they were doomed to lose anyway.



Kherson is a great example of Russia's wisdom of exchanging land to ensure not getting into incredibly costly losses in personnel and material. From one of the articles linked to by Mr. Macgregor:

**
On this topic, let me say one thing, which I’ve been asked about recently several times in comments. Regarding the potential for AFU’s storming of the Dnieper, whether to gain a foothold near the Kherson region or to take ZNPP plant. People are wondering how likely/possible such an operation is.

The most important and basic thing to understand regarding this is: to get to the other side of any river in general is the easy part. Anyone can do this, whether they sustain losses or not. The hard part is subsequently resupplying that new foothold, forward position, etc., to such a degree that you can actually hold it indefinitely. Recall that this was the main reason Russia withdrew from all of Kherson region in general was the very tenuous supply situation which could be cut at any moment.
**

Source:
SITREP 5/20/23: Bakhmut Falls, Artemovsk Rises. What's Next? | simplicius76.substack.com



Continuing your chess analogy, I think you're confusing space on the board for actual pieces. Russia's holding on to its actual pieces as much as possible. Land can be gained and lost but at the end of the day, the side that wins is the side that has the strongest military force by the end of it. It may well be that Russia underestimated the resistance of the Ukrainian military at the beginning, not to mention the massive amount of foreign aid Ukraine received from western nations, but at this point I think it's clear that it's Ukraine and the west that vastly underestimated Russia's will to win this war, not to mention its capability of doing so.



First of all, in response to your first sentence, I'd like to say that I didn't get that impression from Macgregor's article at all. In response to your second, I think you might be right to some extent. I do believe, however, that Russia would very much like a peaceful settlement to this conflict, the sooner the better. That doesn't mean they will accept any peace proposal- I still remember Ukraine's "offer" of peace of Russia just left the disputed territories completely. I think what -might- be acceptable is if Russia were allowed to keep the territory it has now.



The idea that Putin's initial objective was to overthrow Ukraine's government in Kyiv is debateable. I agree that Russia did list one of its goals for a peaceful settlement to be the demilitarization or at least the de nazification of Ukraine's military. However, such concepts are fairly vague. Allowing Russia to keep the territory it's gained would be something that's far more concrete and something I suspect they might settle for.

I'm glad we agree that Ukraine's goals of retaking the Donbass Republics and even Crimea is unrealistic if not downright impossible.

Mostly agree.

[anonymoose]

Allowing Russia to keep the territory it's gained would be something that's far more concrete and something I suspect they might settle for. .

In the short run I think Ukraine will see how much territory they can realistically take back then keep.
I also do not believe a negotiated peace will be the end of this conflict since neither side will be satisfied.
The Great War continued on with WW II. The Cold War did not end 33 years ago, just paused (with a much stronger NATO and much weakened Russia now).

[Phoenyx]

Allowing Russia to keep the territory it's gained would be something that's far more concrete and something I suspect they might settle for.

In the short run I think Ukraine will see how much territory they can realistically take back then keep.

Have you considered the possibility that they may not be able to take back any of it? I'm not talking of some brief destructive foray into Russian controlled land, they can even go into "old" Russia and do that, I'm talking of actually holding on to it.

I also do not believe a negotiated peace will be the end of this conflict since neither side will be satisfied.
The Great War continued on with WW II. The Cold War did not end 33 years ago, just paused (with a much stronger NATO and much weakened Russia now).

I think that the Cold War did end, followed by a time of western duplicity, where it claimed to be all chummy with Russia while it was actually further weakening it in various ways, for instance financially. The war in Ukraine is more of the same, with the U.S. backing the coup of elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in large part with Ukrainian neo nazi forces back in 2014. After that, other western nations got in on the act with the U.S., training and arming the newly installed government starting a war with the Donbass area of Ukraine, ultimately leading to the Donbass Republics. Ukraine et al found that it wasn't so easy to suppress the Donbass republics, so they made a "deal" with Russia, also called the Minsk accords, where they promised Russia they'd work out some diplomatic solution. All lies we're now told, they were just playing along so they could further arm Ukraine to ruthlessly suppress the Donbass Republics, which they were apparently proceeding to do right before Russia started its military operation. Small wonder that Russia got tired of this type of "diplomacy" and opted for a more militaristic approach.

[Tranquillus in Exile]

The war in Ukraine is more of the same, with the U.S. backing the coup of elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in large part with Ukrainian neo nazi forces back in 2014.

This continued talk of Yanukovych being overthrown by “nazis” is getting a bit old, isn’t it? There have been two presidential elections in Ukraine since 2014. If the Ukrainian people wanted a Russian stooge as president, they could have elected one. They didn’t.

After that, other western nations got in on the act with the U.S., training and arming the newly installed government starting a war with the Donbass area of Ukraine, ultimately leading to the Donbass Republics.

Russia seized Crimea by force and instigated pro-Russian uprisings in several other provinces. Only the Donbas coups succeeded. The fact that Donbas has a long border with Russia over which “volunteers” and war material could pass might account for that.

Small wonder that Russia got tired of this type of "diplomacy" and opted for a more militaristic approach.

The Russian autocrat invaded a sovereign country with the declared intention of overthrowing the government and installing one of his choosing. That’s something any great power might do, you think? But it didn’t work out as he expected - far from it - and the “special operation” turned into a war. Now he can’t go forward and he can’t go back. So that’s the position, more than a year later.

[anonymoose]

Have you considered the possibility that they may not be able to take back any of it?

Of course. But in the minds of Ukrainian nationalists, they have to try.
Here’s the dynamics- Russia can increase its mobilization… to a point. The Russian population is not all in on this war, especially the younger ones. Ukraine is already fully mobilized.
The West is still supplying heavy weaponry and looks like will continue this with F-16’s.
Russia is tapped out for now and doesn’t have the manufacturing capacity to replace what they’ve lost and will likely continue to lose.
So as far as Ukrainians are concerned they have to at least try. They really have nothing more to lose. It’s doubtful Russia will make any more significant gains.
Nobody can predict the ultimate outcome but both sides for now are betting on a favorable result.

[Phoenyx]

The war in Ukraine is more of the same, with the U.S. backing the coup of elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in large part with Ukrainian neo nazi forces back in 2014.

This continued talk of Yanukovych being overthrown by “nazis” is getting a bit old, isn’t it?

I don't believe so.

There have been two presidential elections in Ukraine since 2014. If the Ukrainian people wanted a Russian stooge as president, they could have elected one. They didn’t.

The Ukrainian people elected Viktor Yanukovych. The U.S. helped organize a coup of him and his government with the help of neo nazi forces. Their very first act was an attempt to remove the Russian language from government institutions. They were initially blocked from doing so, but eventually got their way. Things of this nature are what led directly to Crimea voting to leave Ukraine and the Donbass region breaking off into the Donbass Republics. Had the U.S. not helped these neo nazi forces, I doubt any of this would have happened.

Russia seized Crimea by force

That's not how most Crimeans see it. I suggest you read the following article from Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett, one of the few journalists who actually went to Crimea after it was annexed by Russia and asked Crimeans themselves:

Return to Russia: Crimeans tell the real story of the 2014 referendum and their lives since | mintpressnews.com

and instigated pro-Russian uprisings in several other provinces.

What evidence do you have that Russia had anything to do with those uprisings? There's actually evidence that Putin discouraged the Donbass Republics from holding referendums on whether to become more independent from Ukraine, but the Donbass Republics went ahead anyway. Then there were the 8 years from 2014 to 2022 where Russia fruitlessly tried to work out a peace deal with the Minsk and Minsk II accords, while Ukraine and its western allies have now admitted that they only agreed to these peace deals so that they could further build up the Ukrainian army.

Only the Donbas coups succeeded. The fact that Donbas has a long border with Russia over which “volunteers” and war material could pass might account for that.

I imagine it does help, but your putting volunteers in quotes suggests that you don't actually believe that a few Russians volunteered to help the Donbass republics fight their wars. If you have any solid evidence suggesting that the Russian government was involved, by all means post it here. For my part, former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud made it quite clear that he saw no such evidence. I made a thread on an article where he discusses his findings and the research backing it up here:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

You also seem to be unaware of the fact that the Donbass Republics were predominantly in Viktor Yanukovych's camp, and when they saw the rather brutal way in which his government was removed, they decided they needed to enact similar measures to ensure that their area wasn't similarly brutalized.

The Russian autocrat invaded a sovereign country with the declared intention of overthrowing the government and installing one of his choosing.

No, that wasn't his declared intention. Feel free to read his complete speech that he gave on the day he started his military operation. It's here:

Here Is the Full Text of Putin’s Speech This Morning, Feb 24, 2022 | paulcraigroberts.org

That’s something any great power might do, you think?

Even the U.S. hasn't been so foolish as to outright state something like that, even though it essentially did that in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq recently. From what I've read, it appears that all Putin initially wanted was for Ukraine to give the Donbass republics more autonomy, something that he'd tried to achieve diplomatically for 8 years prior to his military operation in Ukraine. Only after coming to the correct conclusion that Ukraine and its western backers were only bluffing when they made the Minsk and Minsk II accords did he decided tha the only way to resolve this conflict was militarily. Even then, however, he definitely didn't want a protracted war with Ukraine. That's why he was willing to negotiate a peace deal early on in the war wherein he essentially just asked for what he'd been asking for 8 years prior, to simply have Ukraine give the Donbass Republics more independence. Ukraine was encouraged by the U.K. and the U.S. to refuse the deal and the rest is history.

But it didn’t work out as he expected - far from it - and the “special operation” turned into a war. Now he can’t go forward and he can’t go back. So that’s the position, more than a year later.

I agree with you that the special operation didn't go as Putin had hoped. It appears he thought that he could just give Ukraine a bit of a forceful nudge and they'd decide to give more autonomy to the Donbass Republics. That didn't work out, so he's decided to give a much more forceful nudge. If Ukraine and its western allies were more inclined to see the reality of the situation, they could still probably stop the war in weeks or even days, starting with a request for a ceasefire and negotiations. I doubt that'll happen soon though. Not while Ukraine still has ammunition and the troops and weapons to fire it. The way things are going, though, I suspect the war may essentially wind down by fall. I guess we'll find out.

[Hawkeye10]

I do not think Douglas Macgregor's military opinion should be trusted at all. He thought invading Iraq in 2003 was a great idea, and he even thought we should have gone to Baghdad in 1991 - and he is obviously not "anti-war".

For those who want to know what MacGregor thought of launching the Iraq war here is a 2004 interview about it:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...macgregor.html

[Hawkeye10]

In the short run I think Ukraine will see how much territory they can realistically take back then keep.
I also do not believe a negotiated peace will be the end of this conflict since neither side will be satisfied.
The Great War continued on with WW II. The Cold War did not end 33 years ago, just paused (with a much stronger NATO and much weakened Russia now).

They will continue to lose land until they do as they must.