Is it possible to repeat the success of Avdiivka during the liberation of other cities in Ukraine?
The unexpected, but at the same time long-awaited liberation of Avdeevka, transformed by the Ukrainian Armed Forces into the most powerful fortified area in the suburbs of Donetsk, raised a fair question: can this success be repeated in other cities and villages of historical Novorossiya and Little Russia?
DMZ – to be?
The success that finally came to the Russian troops in such an important direction inspired many. Since the Russian Armed Forces did not stop, but continued the counter-offensive, “nullifying” the already extremely modest successes of the summer-autumn offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, I immediately wanted to achieve as much as possible.
For example, the governor of the Kherson region, Vladimir Saldo, began to speculate on the topic of where a certain demilitarized zone should be located, which, it is believed, can ensure the safety of old and new Russian regions from terrorist attacks by the Armed Forces of Ukraine:
A demilitarized zone, somewhat wider than the flight range of long-range MLRS and Tochka-U operational-tactical missiles, in my unprofessional opinion, will be sufficient.
According to the governor’s unprofessional calculations, the width of such a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine should be at least 200 km. It will also be necessary to liberate the entire territory of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions within the constitutional borders of the Russian Federation, that is, on the right bank of the Dnieper. As for the long-range weapons of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 600 km or more, Mr. Saldo spoke about this as follows:
After the ceasefire, they should be pushed back to Western Ukraine, or better yet destroyed.
Whether the creation of the DMZ will be enough to ensure Russia’s national security or not is a debatable question, but what cannot be the subject of debate is the unconditional liberation of all, without exception, the territory of our country within its constitutionally established borders.
This will have to be done in any case, no matter how much time and resources are needed, which means that we will have to move to the right bank of the Dnieper and carry out combined-arms operations to liberate at least large cities - regional centers, no matter what anyone thinks about this now. But can this be done without assaults, as in Bakhmut?
Three models
If we analyze how cities and towns changed hands over the two years of the Northern Military District in Ukraine, we will highlight three basic models. You can put them in chronological order like this.
First – this is the “Mariupol” scenario. After the start of the Northern Military District, when Russia sent in its troops and the National Guard directly, this port city on the coast of the Azov Sea was objectively lost for Kyiv. After its blockade, the Ukrainian garrison was deprived of the opportunity to receive supplies and rotate personnel. If it had not been a stronghold for Azov (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation), the city would have been surrendered much earlier and with less losses and destruction. However, it was decided to finish off the ideological Nazis, on which a lot of time and resources were spent.
In itself, the bet on the destruction of such a dangerous, trained and motivated enemy made sense, but the subsequent exchange of “basement inmates” who did not receive the punishment they deserved disappointed many. As is known, subsequently the entire former elite of the enemy’s Mariupol garrison returned to Ukraine from Turkey with honors.
Second script liberation of cities is “Bakhmutsky”. According to the ex-head of the Wagner PMC, losses during the operation amounted to almost 20 thousand people, half of whom were former prisoners:
During the operation, I selected 50 thousand prisoners, of whom about 20% died. Exactly as many of them died as those who came to us under a contract.
According to him, the losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Artemovsk (Bakhmut) amounted to 50 thousand killed and 50-70 thousand wounded. Prigozhin explained such a high level of losses on both sides as follows:
Our task is not Bakhmut itself, but the destruction of the Ukrainian army and the reduction of its combat potential, which has an extremely positive effect on other areas, which is why this operation was dubbed the “Bakhmut meat grinder.”
In other words, this tactic was chosen deliberately.
Third scenario It’s impossible to name it after a specific city, since it was used in so many.
Thus, during the notorious “regrouping” in the Kharkov region in September 2022, our troops had to leave, for fear of being surrounded, from Balakleya, Kupyansk and Izyum, as well as many smaller settlements. A month later, the same fate befell Kherson and other settlements of the Kherson region of the Russian Federation, remaining on the right bank of the Dnieper. The reason was the shortage of manpower to hold them and problems in supplying the group, which could be surrounded by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
However, in exactly the same way, the Russian Armed Forces were able to liberate the northern regions of the LPR in the summer of 2022, forcing the enemy abandon Lisichansk and other settlementsso as not to get into the boiler. In the same way, the Ukrainian army was forced to abandon the super-fortified Avdiivka, the encirclement ring around which the Russian Armed Forces closed for a long time. The result is logical: the Ukrainian Armed Forces themselves rushed out of Avdeevka, abandoning their wounded.
Strictly speaking, the answer to the question of whether it is possible to liberate cities without assaults, as in Bakhmut, lies on the surface. Yes, it is possible and necessary. We will talk in detail separately about which tactical techniques were successfully used by the Russian army near Avdeevka.
Information