How are Russian losses justified in Bakhmut

Earlier this month, Western officials estimated between 20,000 and 30,000 Russian troops had been killed or injured in Bakhmut since last summer.
www.bbc.com...

I’m not trying to justify anything the “west” is doing.

But those that are Putin fanboys. How do you justify Russian Losses in Bakhmut to achieve what?

originally posted by: WhatItIs

Earlier this month, Western officials estimated between 20,000 and 30,000 Russian troops had been killed or injured in Bakhmut since last summer.
www.bbc.com...

I’m not trying to justify anything the “west” is doing.

But those that are Putin fanboys. How do you justify Russian Losses in Bakhmut to achieve what?

Not a Putin fanboi and labels are so 1990s BTW, Generally, the losses are justified because the Russians are trained to expect large casualty rates

below are the likely realities about the Russian troop strength from Jim Dunnigan military author of the Dirty Little Secrets books among others... you could find worse sources than this accomplished military author and associates

about as unbiased as they come.

www.strategypage.com...

and more here

www.strategypage.com...

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russians were free to express what they really felt about their military and most regarded military service as something to be avoided. Because of this the trained reserves were seen as an effort to get people with previous military training to join a peacetime force, continue training a bit, get paid for that and be eligible for rapid mobilization in the event of a war. Most Russians assumed this would be a war to defend Russia being invaded, not Russian troops invading a neighbor. The mobilizations to replace early Ukraine war losses were seen as typical of Russian army incompetence and this was another reason why Russians avoided the reserves. The mobilizations found that there were fewer than 10,000 actual trained reservists and most of them regarded the Ukraine invasion as something they had not become a reservist for.

As was historically the case, the Russian army adapted to the mess in Ukraine and developed tactics that made the most of the many Russian shortcomings. This enabled Russian units to be of some use in combat. These improvised units took heavy casualties but the survivors became more capable and effective. This was another Russian military tradition and one that enabled Russia to emerge victorious during World War II. What was not revealed until the Soviet Union dissolved was the true cost of that victory; 13 percent of the pre-war population. That’s over 27 million dead. The Soviets reported lower losses because the true losses were considered bad for morale. When the true extent of the losses was revealed most Russians were not surprised at the higher losses and believed it was more realistic. Most Russian (and Ukrainian) families had a history of heavy civilian and military losses during World War II.

This explains the Russian expectation of high casualties in Ukraine. This is the first major war Russia fought since World War II. Naturally, the poor preparation and high casualty rates were expected. What has changed is that, unlike World War II, Russians have more opportunities to avoid going to Ukraine at all. Post-Soviet Russia no longer had the feared KGB and nationwide network of informers. Also absent was a homicidal maniac like World War II leader Josef Stalin. Putin tried to emulate all these World War II era tools but was unable to do so. One reason the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 was that Russians were fed up the many of the Soviet era military “traditions.” After 1991, school history textbooks were revised to tell the truth about Russian history. While this was not shocking to most foreigners, especially Westerners, it was a surprise to older Russians but the young students accepted the new textbooks because it described a Russia similar to the one quietly discussed among the adults, especially the older ones, in their families.

Staff Biographies
Al Nofi was a teacher and administrator in experimental programs in the New York City public school system, until he retired in 1995, to continue his long-term avocation, as an independent scholar and game designer. The author or editor of over 30 volumes in military history, plus scores of articles, and over a dozen wargames. A former assistant editor of Strategy & Tactics magazine, he was also an associate editor of the 40-volume series War and Society in East Central Europe, 1740-1920, from Atlantic Research/Columbia University Press, and is currently an editor of the series Great Campaigns of Military History. He contributes regular columns in military history to North & South and StrategyPage, and is an Associate Fellow of the U.S. Civil War Center, at Louisiana State University, a Director of the New York Military Affairs Symposium, an occasional contributor to the History Channel, and a former sea cook. Al holds a B.A. (1965) and M.A. (1967) in history from Fordham University, and an M. Phil (1985) and Ph.D. (1991) in military history from the City University of New York. He has a website under construction at www.nofi.nu.
Austin Bay is a syndicated columnist (Creators Syndicate) and author (four non-fiction books, three novels). His commentaries appear on National Public Radio's Morning Edition program. He has worked as a special consultant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Bay retired as a colonel (Armor) from the US Army Reserve in 2003. He was recalled to active duty in 2004 and served in Iraq with US Army III Corps (Multi-National Corps--Iraq). He is an Army War College grad and has a PhD from Columbia University.

Stephen V Cole is a registered engineer and a company commander in the Texas Guard. He edited and published FYEO for 17 years after saving it from the hostile takeover of the previous publisher, then sold it back to its creator, Jim Dunnigan. During that tenure, he published thousands of articles on military affairs and made FYEO the sole publication providing a daily list of all military events, order of battle changes, and new weapon specifications (a tradition continued by Strategy Page). Stephen V Cole studied military affairs as a teenager under his father, a colonel-professor at Command & General Staff College, and graduated from ROTC in 1975.

Jim Dunnigan is an author (over 20 books), wargame designer (over 100 designed and publisher of over 500), defense advisor (since the 1970s), pundit (since the 1970s) and general troublemaker. Served in the US Army artillery (1961-64) as a Spec/4.

I guess you have to search for answers from your "Putin fanboys" somewhere else than ATS.

a reply to: WhatItIs

That's what Russia does in most military confrontations.

They fling men into the meat grinder as nothing more than cannon fodder until they wear down or overwhelm the enemy by sheer numbers alone.

As to how it will be justified, it's predominantly the Wagner Group that's apparently responsible for capturing eastern Bakhmut a load of which constitute criminals and other miscreants deemed to be pretty much expendable and no great loss far as i can establish.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: WhatItIs

That's what Russia does in most military confrontations.

They fling men into the meat grinder as nothing more than cannon fodder until they wear down or overwhelm the enemy by sheer numbers alone.

As to how it will be justified, it's predominantly the Wagner Group that's apparently responsible for capturing eastern Bakhmut a load of which constitute criminals and other miscreants deemed to be pretty much expendable and no great loss far as i can establish.

Pretty much, and by using Wagner Group troops it lessens whatever little blowback Putin was getting from the average Russian.

The main point is this isn't going to end anytime soon.

a reply to: putnam6

I don't see it ending anytime soon neither putnam6.

The fact is Ukraine is not anywhere near ready to capitulate, roll over, and surrender.

And Russian Federation forces are not willing, or even able, to up-stix, retreat, and go back home to whence they came.

Here is another main point and some food for thought.

Both Ukraine and Russia share the same too similar problems where an aging population is concerned.

And none of them can afford to lose an entire generation or thereabouts down to war and slaughter.

What a predicament!

a reply to: WhatItIs

I wouldn't be so sure of the casualty numbers when the source is "Western Intelligence". I'm sure "Russian Intelligence" as reported by MSM in Moscow paints a different picture.

The truth is probably somewhere in between the numbers projected by the institutions of propaganda.

Change your VPN to Russia and use a translator to read Russian articles and you'll see what i mean.

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”

a reply to: andy06shake
That tactic of ordering waves of poorly armed attackers is exactly the tactic the Chinese used against the allied forces when they joined the Korean War. The population was sufficient to absorb the losses and the strategy required few other resources. --It followed the communist doctrine exactly. No good communist could forcibly argue against it.

Using the BBC as a source is aking to asking Jimmy Saville to watch your sick aunt.


These people are trained liars, the 4th estate of the establishment which is run on pure propaganda. Russia aren't losing thousands and thousands of manpower, they're doing the same this America did in Iraq, using contractors to capture key positions and then artillery supporting those positions for days and days until all the Ukrainian troops are dead. Russia VASTLY outnumbers Ukraines capacity for artillery fire, and their ammo is about 12* cheaper too.

Basically, you're being lied to.

Don't forget, they told us that Russia was just about OUT of missiles TWO MONTHS before Russia launched of one the most extensive missile strikes ever seen.......

We are not told the truth. The truth is dead. We know nothing.

a reply to: WhatItIs
Could it possibly be the same people who have lied to us about every conflict since the Korean War are lying about this?

9 Ukranians die for every 1 Russian. That's the real numbers.

a reply to: WhatItIs

I think Bakhmut/Artyomovsk is important because of the tunnel system and the miles of old soviet bunkers connecting each other underneath the city. If they don't take that city, the rest of Donbas is going to be hard, maybe even impossible to take.
Also, this city is possibly a bit symbolic for some of the fighters(like Wagner group/DPR/LPR army) because pro-Ukraine and pro-Russian have been fighting in and around this city since 2014.

The tunnel/bunker system can hold many people and even armor, and there is probably ammo/weapons stashed there as well, mostly from the Russian/Soviet era.
Seen pictures on telegram from some of those areas that had been re-captured around the city, where they got some weapons/ammo. Not sure if it's true, a lot of propaganda on telegram.

The tunnel systems are real though, also the whole city has been building up defenses since the start of the war in 2014.
They have been building defenses for more than 8 years now.

a reply to: Observer19

Pretty much exactly how it went down far as im aware.

In this day of age through, Ukraine nor Russia realistically have the population numbers to absorb the losses should they continue the war and slaughter one another at the rate they are going.

Russia may well defeat Ukraine in the long run down to sheer numbers alone, but it will be somewhat of a pyrrhic victory.

And not something her population can absorb without serious repercussions back home.

Also all they win in a scenario and nation reminiscent of Ireland during the times of the troubles, only 9 times the size, good luck policing that place with whatever and whoever is left standing.

Plus look at the number of people who have chosen to flee Russia down to the fact that they do not wish to fight.

It's not looking good for future Russian or Ukrainian generations to come.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

I don't see it ending anytime soon neither putnam6.

The fact is Ukraine is not anywhere near ready to capitulate, roll over, and surrender.

And Russian Federation forces are not willing, or even able, to up-stix, retreat, and go back home to whence they came.

Here is another main point and some food for thought.

Both Ukraine and Russia share the same too similar problems where an aging population is concerned.

And none of them can afford to lose an entire generation or thereabouts down to war and slaughter.

What a predicament!

Ukraine and Russia have the same problems where corruption and graft are concerned too. Ukraine and particularly Zelenskky has made headway in this concern, I have no doubt he knows if a whiff of a scandal of significant losses to corruption and his current support level may erode.

here's another assessment of the role of corruption in the current Ukraine/Russo-Special Military Operation.

www.strategypage.com...

If you cant read all of it, read the last 2 paragraphs...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Observer19

Pretty much exactly how it went down far as im aware.

In this day of age through, Ukraine nor Russia realistically have the population numbers to absorb the losses should they continue the war and slaughter one another at the rate they are going.

Russia may well defeat Ukraine in the long run down to sheer numbers alone, but it will be somewhat of a pyrrhic victory.

And not something her population can absorb without serious repercussions back home.

Also all they win in a scenario and nation reminiscent of Ireland during the times of the troubles, only 9 times the size, good luck policing that place with whatever and whoever is left standing.

Plus look at the number of people who have chosen to flee Russia down to the fact that they do not wish to fight.

It's not looking good for future Russian or Ukrainian generations to come.

I agree 100%, hell I believe on some levels even Putin knows this, there will be constant fighting no matter who wins. If it's Russia they will take a huge hit for this generation and have set back relations with the west to the 50s, and there is no doubt even a partial Ukrainian loss will result in guerilla warfare and attacks on Russia proper.

A Ukrainian win looks like a flashback to 2014, when Russia will have its own guerilla warfare and will continue to try and corrupt Ukraine from the inside out.

I can easily see there having to be a security force in Ukraine for decades, just because of the losses of those of military age.

the Russians have always fought this way, using human wave tactics without concern for losses so long as victory is achieved, its not ideal but it works eventually even with lesser training, experience, bad logistics, old equipment, etc. war is about who can last longest not how many battles are won or how well you win.

originally posted by: JAY1980
a reply to: WhatItIs
Could it possibly be the same people who have lied to us about every conflict since the Korean War are lying about this?

9 Ukranians die for every 1 Russian. That's the real numbers.

May I ask, do you have a source or any evidence for your claim?

a reply to: Dizle81

I think that the importance for Putin of taking Bakhmut is not strategic, more symbolic. He desperately needs some sort of "victory" purely to try to justify his War at home.

And because of his vanity.

It suits him to throw thousands of mostly Wagner mercenaries at the place like waves of Cannon fodder into a killing zone.

Equally, it seems that Ukraine does not see it as having any strategic value, but as an opportunity to cause maximum attrition of the invading forces.

Just my two cents. I don't claim to be any kind of military expert but this just seems obvious.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The importance for Putin of taking Bakhmut is not just strategic, more symbolic. He desperately needs some sort of "victory" purely to try to justify his War at home.

Not so sure about that it's not strategic at all ,like i said it's symbolic mostly because a lot of the DPR/LPR army and Wagner lost a lot of soldiers around this area the last 8 years, they don't want it to be for nothing.
they need this town secured if they want to take Donbas,it's still Russia's mission to take Donbas and keep Crimea secure and it stays under Russian Federation rule,that's the only way Russia can get a victory.

Go look into PMCs (Private military corporations) and you will see that Russia learned it from the best(western countries have been using PMCs to fight their wars for ages) , using these types of organizations in wars is very useful for countries that are going into war,it's nothing new either.
Most of those guys in Wagner and other PMCs earn a lot of money for doing the work they do, those prisoners they hired fight for freedom and a better live, just like Ukrainians are doing.

Equally, it seems that Ukraine does not see it as having any strategic value, but as an opportunity to cause maximum attrition of the invading forces.

Both sides are loosing a lot soldiers,not just Russia .
Russia said they are demilitarizing Ukraine,and that's what they are and have been doing the last few months .Russia can throw a lot more soldiers at this war,and the moment Putin/Kremlin says they are really going to war with Ukraine and they really start to mobilize people like Ukraine did,this war is going to get worse for both sides and without more NATO soldiers, Ukraine ain't going to win.

I'm no military expert either,these are just my 2 cents.

a reply to: Dizle81

Ah:

"The importance for Putin of taking Bakhmut is not just strategic, more symbolic. He desperately needs some sort of "victory" purely to try to justify his War at home."


That misquotes my post. I did not use the word "just".

I said:

"I think that the importance for Putin of taking Bakhmut is not strategic, ..."


That rather changes the context of what I actually posted?

originally posted by: WhatItIs

But those that are Putin fanboys. How do you justify Russian Losses in Bakhmut to achieve what?

Because zero Russians have been killed in this event...