Comments by "Aaron Baker" (@aaronbaker2186) on "The Fall of Bakhmut is Imminent! 6 April 23 Ukraine Daily Update" video.

Those units were not combat ready when they were sent in. Russia is trading lives for land, at a rate that would depopulate Russia before they reached Kyiv.
16
@williamalexander9485 at the current rate of Russian advances, what century does Russia reach Kyiv? 😅 And at the current rate of Russian losses per meter, how far into negative numbers would the Russian population reach before getting there? As for western support, it may shorten the war but it won't change the result. Like the French, US, and Chinese wars with Vietnam and the UK, USSR, and US wars in Afghanistan, plus the US war in Iraq, the foreign power coming in to conquer and take rights from the locals will always get tired of the deaths, crippling injuries, terror attacks, and sabotage from the locals. Moreso for Russia as having 35-40 million people who can pass as Russian able to enter Moscow with guns and bombs who hate all Moscovites...lol. That statue trick was the tip of the Iceberg. Imagine a Ukrainian father whose child was killed in school by a Russian missile or drone using an RPG on a Moscow school bus. That sort of thing, happening over and over again until Russia leaves Ukraine, is what Russian "victory," looks like.
7
@luttlur7385 if you are willing to throw away enough lives you can win a little land. At this rate taking the Donbas would cost Russia about 140 million casualties. What is the population of Russia?
6
Yeah, it isn't an important location. When Ukraine pulls out they pull to the next fortified city in the line and the Russians get to lose as many troops as the former population of that city too. 😂
5
The strategic objective is to win the war. The only way to do that is to force Russia to give up. Russia doesn't have to give up if their troops are forced back inside Russian borders. So land isn't a good objective. Russia gives up when the future cost of continuing exceeds the future benefit, or they are unable to continue. Whether due to manpower, equipment, finances, or political will. The west is attacking the finance front, and I had hopes that would force a Russian withdrawal around fall, but I am not as confident now. I think there is still a chance but 50-50? If the Russians are not forced to leave because of bankruptcy in the fall I don't expect it to happen in Winter, maybe a year later? Equipment wise Russia is shrinking, but won't run out so much as see their forces become smaller and less capable. Is there a point where even the Dugan types see that Russia can't win and should quit? Sure, but I don't see that happening soon. But manpower is a problem for Russia both directly and as it affects political will. Putin could mobilize 3 million men, and while they would have crap equipment they could take land. But they would take horrible losses and once they are gone Russia won't have much else (Russia had 7 million men aged 18-28 in February 2022, a lot of young Russian men fled, so they probably had 6.2 million in September. Figure half are not fit for military service). So the cold reality is that the best strategy for Ukraine is to kill enough Russians that Russia either realizes they can't afford to lose more, or the war becomes impossible to maintain support for at home.
5
@solidfoelife but the locals watched the mines being placed and the defenses being dug. Ukrainian himars know the exact location of every barracks and trench in that area. Ukrainian minesweeper units know exactly where the mines are. Ukraine also knows what parts of the Russian line are held by old men or Mobiks. Then the good Russian units on the line will suddenly find that Ukrainian troops and armor are behind them, and panick like the 1st Guards Armor did at Izium.
4
You don't have to take land back with troops to win a war. If you look at a map of Europe in 1918, Germany was winning in land controlled. France took all that land back and more in the peace deal. Ukraine just needs to kill the maximum number of Russians while taking the minimum losses themselves. Eventually Russia will get tired of throwing away men and money on a war they can never win.
3
@hopposai787 you assume that Russia has more manpower than Ukraine, which is logical on paper. But... Lets say that Ukraine is willing to send everyone they can into combat, logical since this is an existential war. The point where they run out of manpower is probably north of 5 million casualties. At a 1:1 ratio, that is 5 million Russian men dead or wounded. Russia had 7 million men aged 18-28 on Feb 1, 2022 and thanks to draft dodgers wete at about 6.2 million in September. Now a lot of Russian troops are over 28, but this gives an idea of the manpower pool Russia is depleting. Is Russia willing to destroy their ability to make war for a generation, and see their core population decline significantly, to add millions of people who will hate Moscow, kill Russian troops and government officials constantly, and rebel at the first opportunity? Will Putin throw away a million men on this war? Sure, for his pride and to convince the extreme pro-war Russians that peace is needed (even Dugan will call for peace once enough Russians die for no significant change). But he won't break Russia to break Ukraine, and that is what it would take.
3
I think it was Perun who pointed out that the reason for the manpower wasting attacks is that is the only way for Russian generals to make sure the troops are actually attacking.
2
Yes, it is possible that Russia eventually wins the war. Then they start the hard part. Remember that both the USSR and US easily won their wars in Afghanistan. What happened after? A Russian victory in Ukraine would probably be worse than a defeat. The Ukrainians know what worked for Chechnyans, attacking the citizens of Moscow. I'm not sure how long Moscow can endure 40 times the attacks per month.
2
This war is fought on manpower, not land. If holding the line gives a favorable casualty ratio Ukraine should hold the line. If they risk getting overrun or otherwise unfavorable casualty ratios they should leave. The war ends when enough Russians have died for Russia to decide Ukraine isn't worth the cost. The sooner the magic death number is reached, the shorter the war.
1
 @GoCoyote I didn't see you say it was a bad idea.
1
Weather at Inchon was important too 😊
1
I'd rather Ukraine give up Bakhmut for Mariupol.
1
By that standard the US should have won in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Remember that a war of conquest is a 2 part war, with the occupation after winning the conventional war considered the more difficult task. Ukraine and Iraq have similar population counts and the US is over twice the population of Russia and 10 times the economy. How long can Russia afford to occupy Ukraine?
1
 @williamalexander9485 also Ivan, you shouldn't use a western name. Everyone knows all western supporters of Russia are pedophiles. You don't want people to think you are into kids do you?
1
Yep, don't worry about land, focus on destroying Russia's ability to fight.
1
And killing as many Russians as they did. Like WW1, this war will not be decided by land, but by casualties and will to keep fighting. Remember that Germany was winning, if judging by land, when the armistice was signed. Ukraine won't stop fighting, so the question is how many Russians they have to kill to force Russia to leave. The more Russians die, the sooner the war ends.
1