Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Whose ‘Stalingrad’ will Bakhmut be?
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Inc ^ | MARCH 14, 2023 | Geoffrey Roberts

Posted on 03/14/2023 6:43:53 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican

Is the epic battle for Bakhmut turning into the Stalingrad of the Russia-Ukraine war? Would the city’s capture by Russian forces swing the war decisively in Putin’s favor?

On the other hand, would a successful Ukrainian defense of the city provide the springboard for a tide-turning counter offensive to push back Putin’s invasion?

Like Bakhmut, the Battle of Stalingrad of 1942-1943 was a prolonged war of attrition — 200 days of fire as the Soviets liked to say — albeit on a much larger scale. Casualty figures are hard to pin down but scholars have generally estimated 850,000 Axis soldiers (German and allies) dead or wounded, with over 1.1 million casualties, including civilians, on the Russian side.

Neither side intended to wage such a costly battle, but both were willing to do so in pursuit of key strategic goals. Attrition was a means to achieve those goals, not an end in itself.

(Excerpt) Read more at responsiblestatecraft.org ...


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: bakhmut
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: DesertRhino

The Germans only hope was to instigate a Civil War amongst the Russians, and perhaps force an overthrow of Stalin, in order to “Divide and Conquer”.


21 posted on 03/14/2023 8:50:13 PM PDT by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

In order to launch Barbarossa Hitler had to redeploy over a million troops from Mediterranean and North Africa. If he had kept them deployed there and seized the Suez, he would have controlled the Med, severed Great Britain’s supply lines from her empire and forced her to retire from the war. Germany then could have turned full attention to Russia. I believe Hitler must have seen this but his obsession with defeating Russia, plus fear of giving them time to build their own war machine, induced him to launch prematurely and into ultimate defeat..


22 posted on 03/14/2023 8:53:56 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard ( Resist the narrative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
If he had kept them deployed there and seized the Suez, he would have controlled the Med, severed Great Britain’s supply lines from her empire and forced her to retire from the war. Germany then could have turned full attention to Russia.

It was bound to happen. Two bloodthirsty tyrants right next to each other cannot peacefully co-exist

23 posted on 03/14/2023 8:55:53 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
Bakhmut has little strategic advantage except having some high ground between Russian troops and the rest of Ukraine.

It does have propaganda value. Wagner Group is trying to show that they can capture objectives, that the Russian military is incapable of capturing.

As to a war of attrition; such wars are pointless if both sides are loosing equally on one side can not afford the level of losses. In this situation you have a huge country losing about 3 soldiers for each Ukrainian lost. Both sides are intent of bleeding the other dry and continuing the war of attrition.

I am not sure how valuable it is for Ukraine to continue this meat grinder much longer. However, from a propaganda aspect, if they can force Russia and Wagner Group to become more at odds with each other, that is of value, even at the cost of lots of lives.

At some point the loss of life on the Russian side of the battle line, will become too much. I hope that happens soon and I hope that Wagner officials end up dying in strange circumstances like all those other famous Russian oligarchs.

I also hope that the Russians who are not ethnic European come to view Putin and Moscow as evil rulers that care nothing of human life that is not of European ethnic background.

24 posted on 03/15/2023 12:02:35 AM PDT by Robert357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
Really all that lost cause thinking misses two points. The Germans were never going to get a surrender, even had they taken Moscow. Napoleon took Moscow with 100,000 men. Had they crossed the Volga and even taken Moscow... their highwater mark would have simply been another hundred miles east.

Hitler recognized Russia was too large to take in entirety and was content to secure a line roughly from Arkhangelsk to Astrakhan with some sort of vassal security zone extending east to the Urals.

25 posted on 03/15/2023 1:58:46 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Yes, Hitler was afraid that, even with an alliance, Stalin would build up his war machine and eventually turn on him. The thing was that it would have made a huge difference in morale if the USSR had initiated the hostilities without provocation. Can’t prove it, but I don’t think the average Russian soldier would have been nearly as motivated and brave if they had been the aggressors. The fact that Operation Barbarossa was viewed as a sneak attack on the USSR caused all Russians to rally around Stalin and his regime (Ukrainians excepted).

If Stalin had attacked in 1944 or so, he might have gotten as far as Warsaw before his army was exhausted and he had to sue for peace.


26 posted on 03/15/2023 4:40:04 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

In Fall 1941, Hitler supposedly said that if he knew about the existence of the T-34 tank (by itself), he never would have launched Barabarossa. The German military was awed by the toughness of that tank. Their anti-armor weapons would hit it and leave the tank undamaged. In fact, the mechanical problems of the T-34 were initially more of a problem than the German weapons.


27 posted on 03/15/2023 4:49:50 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Are you one of those decepticons who insists it’s a Russia-Ukraine war when the war would have lasted fifteen minutes without the 200-billion+ US dollars FJB gave them?

China is smacking its lips while the US depletes all its materiel.

Carry on.


28 posted on 03/15/2023 4:58:12 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (The worst thing about censorship is ████ █ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████. FJB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Looks like Putin’s new Nazis, the Wagner group et al are blowing it here now


29 posted on 03/15/2023 7:21:38 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Robert357

It does seem that way in Tatarstan and the Caucasus.

But even ethnic Russians are being affected by this war.


30 posted on 03/15/2023 7:23:35 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum; Alter Kaker

E pluri, this is a Russia versus Ukraine war.

In Feb, Biden had taken out all American advisors and later offered to airlift Zelensky out of Kyiv. Biden wanted Ukraine gone.

But the Ukrainians fought on their own for February and March with no aid. Aid came in after the west saw that Ukraine was surviving and even pushing back the Russians


31 posted on 03/15/2023 7:26:09 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

You are full of Obama.


32 posted on 03/15/2023 7:33:20 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (The worst thing about censorship is ████ █ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████. FJB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Totally true.


33 posted on 03/15/2023 4:04:36 PM PDT by Robert357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Deflection is a standard leftist tactic that you are using.

As I wrote, this is a Russia versus Ukraine war.

In Feb, Biden had taken out all American advisors and later offered to airlift Zelensky out of Kyiv. Biden wanted Ukraine gone.

But the Ukrainians fought on their own for February and March with no aid. Aid came in after the west saw that Ukraine was surviving and even pushing back the Russians


34 posted on 03/15/2023 6:46:05 PM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

I don’t think it is a Stalin grad moment for either side.

Stalingrad in hindsight was and is seen as the moment Germany stopped winning in the east and was the start of their defeat in the east.

In north Africa it was El Alamein.

In the west, I would say the battle of Britain.

In this particular war the pivotal moment happened in March when Russia lost the battle of Hostomel and of Kyiv.

Until that point, Russia had been advancing, taking over 27% of Ukraine at their peak ascendency.

After March we have seen 12 months of near constant Russian retreats.

And losses...

such as losing the attempt to padlock ugly taking Odessa, which was lost in the battle for Mykolaiv and decisively decided with the Russian retreat from kherson in November 2022.

Or the collapse of the Russian front east of kharkiv in September 2022.

But those latter 3 moments were not as pivotal as the battle for Kyiv February to March 2022. That could be compared to Stalingrad


35 posted on 03/16/2023 6:19:35 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson