[Tom Tetroxide]

Yet, the Russians have captured at least 75% of Bakhmut according to the pro-Uke battle map you can find at
https://liveuamap.com/.

Obviously the only way we interpret capturing that much of Bakhmut means that the Ruskies are “struggling” as well as losing. What other alternative explanation could there be?

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

“Ruskies are “struggling” as well as losing. What other alternative explanation could there be?”

SEE COMMENT #3:
“In Bakhmut, Russian forces attempted to complement their recent offensive to the north of Bakhmut by developing attacks to the south. However, Ukrainians understood that this was the next logical step and assigned their best sniper, artillery, and drone crews to make sure that Russians do not cross the main street, so when Russians started launching their attacks, they lost one assault unit after another within minutes.

Also, COMMENT #7:

VIDEO: Yevgeny Prigozhin: Ukraine’s coming counteroffensive is more likely to succeed
Kanal13
1.53M subscribers
Apr 16, 2023 12:15 p.m. DST
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcDw_gpxEKM

[Widget Jr]

Bakhmut is a bigger deal for Russia than it is for Ukraine. It has taken Russia over a year to not fully capture 16 square miles. For Ukraine, it is a opprotunity to kill core Wagner fighters while preventing other cities from getting destroyed.

The facts are Russia did not wipe out Ukraine in a few weeks, was not at Ukraine's Polish borders months ago, and hasn't taken Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and a number of cities and towns right next to Russian controlled territory before the war started. Now they are sending T-55 tanks and other obsolete weapons to the front..

That clearly shows Russia is struggling.

[popdonnelly]

The Russians fought for months at great loss to gain that much of Bakhmut. How many victories like that can they afford?