Fester,

The Wagner forces have been largely wiped out. At first, they asked for regular forces to hold the flanks as they'd run out of men so they could focus on the city. But the Ukrainians' tactics of creating a killing field for Russians, then moving back to another killing position has cost Wagner so many men that they now need regular forces to even make a showing in Bahkmut.

This is a perfect fighting retreat not like the rout of the Russians in Kharkiv and Kherson. My guess is that while Ukraine is hammering the Russian lines in the South the main offensive will be against the North.

Russia is losing this war and another mobilization is not going to help them.

Hi Shadowminister,

Wherever the Ukrainians attack they will need to be successful. The Russian army is big, dangerous and has no moral compass. The Ukrainians would be very vulnerable if an attack failed.

I suspect that they will employ the same tactic of rapid advance and cutting supplies. Where they attack will depend on having enough troops and equipment. I'd like to see them able to cut through to Melitopol and cut off the Crimean Peninsula, but they would need lots of tanks and aircraft to do that. I don't know how the Russian forces are spread, which would shape Ukrainian plans, but I think that Russia is losing capability faster, so I don't think that the Ukrainians are in a huge hurry. They have probably been using Bakhmut as a testing ground for strategies to fight the Russians.

I don't have ACs insight, so I will have to wait and see.

Hi Fester,
"At the time you were saying that Ukraine got lucky in the north but faced the real Russian army in Kherson and got smashed."

No you got it around the wrong way.
I said the withdrawal went smoothly in Kherson but was a debacle in Kharkov.

"Wagner forces used to operate over a 90km front. Thanks to Bakhmut they now operate over a 5km front with the assistance of the Russian army."

Yes they've taken a lot of casualties, but that means the Russian army took a lot less.

"Meanwhile the Ukrainian military is preparing a counteroffensive and its chance of success is increasing with the ongoing destruction of the Russian army."

I don't necessarily think so.
Firstly it shows their counteroffensive was not well prepared.
They used up more than they should've trying to defend Bakhmut, and now don't have enough troops, weapons and ammunition, and can't get more in time. Also the Pentagon documents release provides an excuse to delay it.

But finally, the longer they wait and try to stock up on what they need the more Russia destroys fuel and ammunition depots and reduces Ukrainian troop numbers, they've already been taking troops from other areas and sending them to Bakhmut, meaning other fronts are less well defended.

I'll give Bakhmut 2 to 3 weeks tops, before most of the city is taken except for the larger building in south western part of the city.
Taking it all depends on how long the last fighters can hold out for like in Mariupol. TRussia has fire control over all ways in and out.

"Where they attack will depend on having enough troops and equipment. I'd like to see them able to cut through to Melitopol and cut off the Crimean Peninsula, but they would need lots of tanks and aircraft to do that."

It seems to me that's exactly what Washington wants - Crimea.
It's going to be messy to achieve and will require a lot of fuel, tanks, drones and manpower to do it, and if it goes wrong, the entire counteroffensive will face annihilation.

If it gets messy in Crimea Russia will just drop a mini nuke on them, that's Russia territory 100% now.

Hi AC,

It would be a disaster for Ukraine if a counteroffensive failed, which is why they take their time. They still have troops to train, equipment to receive, and ground conditions need to be favourable. They are holding the front against the Russian army with as little as they can, but they are keeping a good eye on what is where.

Russia is unlikely to use nuclear weapons, not least because it would mean that the Russian forces would be fighting NATO instead of an army equipped with NATO hand me downs. I am sure that the repercussions of such an action have been made clear to Putin.

Hi Fester,
"Russia is unlikely to use nuclear weapons, not least because it would mean that the Russian forces would be fighting NATO instead of an army equipped with NATO hand me downs. I am sure that the repercussions of such an action have been made clear to Putin."

I'm talking about 'tactical nuclear weapons' not 'strategic nuclear weapons', of which Russia has about 2000 of them.
- These are also known as Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons (NSNW)

Russia’s Small Nukes are a Big Problem for European Security
http://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/russias-small-nukes-are-big-problem-european-security

"Assessments based on open sources estimate that Russia has about 2,000 NSNWs. It is similarly assessed that the United States and NATO have about 200 NSNWs in their arsenal. It is postulated that half of those U.S.-NATO weapons are located in the United States and half are based in Europe as part of NATO’s nuclear forces.

While capable of significant destruction, these tactical nuclear weapons are lower in yield—or explosive power—and are meant for use on the battlefield against military installations or troop and equipment concentrations as opposed for use against counterforce or countervalue targets such as ICBM missile fields, command and control nodes, and or population centers."

To give yourself an idea of the damage I'm talking about go here (link below)
- And simulate a 1 kiloton nuclear detonation with 'airburst' over where you live (for reference)
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

- This might be enough to do all sorts of damage against a counteroffensive if they tried to take Crimea, but not necessarily enough to start a nuclear war.
Drop one or two on a Ukrainian counteroffensive, and it's all over for the Ukraine counteroffensive.

Don't forget that Russia probably has these weapons in it's arsenal and Dmitry Medvedev has warned that Russia is prepared to use them in the case of Crimea.

Russia warns of nuclear retaliation if Ukraine tries to seize Crimea
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/russia-medvedev-ukraine-russia-crimea-nuclear-weapons-b1069741.html

"Dmitry Medvedev, who is currently the deputy secretary of Russia’s Security Council, said Russia is prepared to use 'absolutely any weapon' in the event of an attack on Crimea"

...Just saying