Why the Severodonetsk Fight and Withdrawl Were A Strategic Failure For Russia

From a cost-benefit standpoint, Ukraine was able to cause more casualties and weapons losses for Russia than it suffered itself. In addition, it took pressure off other, more strategically important regions like Kharkiv and Kherson, where Ukrainian troops are now advancing. 

Ukraine is better able to regenerate force for the next phase of the war than is Russia. JL 

Phillips O'Brien reports in Twitter:

The Ukr withdrawal from Severodonetsk is not some great 'strategic' victory for Russia. It does not effect in any way Ukr ability to regenerate force and keep fighting the war. At best its a tactical adjustment.The way that Russia ended up in control of Severodonetsk shows it's a sign of strategic failure for Russia. In terms of relative losses (and relative improvements in equipment) we are seeing the petering out of Russian ability to advance. Otoh, Ukraine is getting newer and better systems, and will become more effective.The way the fate of Severodonetsk was decided was not a 'strategic defeat' for Ukraine, its a sign of strategic failure for Russia. Look at the engagement not in terms of territory (which is irrelevant in terms of force regeneration) but in terms of relative losses and ability to replace.

 

The Ukr withdrawal from Severodonetsk is not some great 'strategic' victory for Russia. It does not effect in any way Ukr ability to regenerate force and keep fighting the war. At best its a tactical adjustment.The way that Russia ended up in control of Severodonetsk shows what a failure it was. There is no way, under modern combined arms war, that they would have wanted to do an urban assault against an enemy with open supply lines.

 

There are fewer than 20 miles between Russian forces to the North (coming out of Lyman) to the South (coming out of Popasna). Modern war 101, let alone Russian doctrine, says at a minimum you should be able to encircle Severodonetsk, cut it off, and weaken it before assault.Its a very small distance and the Russians have been trying to cut off the cities for months--and they just cant do it. Thats left them doing the worst possible option, the direct assault on the city. And even then, the Ukrainians were able to withdrawal in good order

 

Looking in terms of relative losses (and relative improvements in equipment) have led some very astute people to judge that what we are seeing is the petering out of Russian ability to advance. Otoh, Ukraine is getting newer and better systems, and will become more effective.

 

Also worth pointing out that there are signs of a growing Ukrainian resistance movement behind Russian lines. Ukraine claims its partisans have killed more than 100 Russian soldiers behind enemy lines in Melitopol. “Our people are doing everything to make sure the land burns under the feet of the occupiers,” says the town’s mayor, Ivan Fedorov”.

 

HIMARS are now being used and the Ukrainians are becoming increasingly more proficient using M777s, Caesars, Panzerhaubitze, etc. All these systems are far more capable than anything Ukraine had on Feb 24 (or even April 18).

 

Nothing has changed. Russia growing weaker and having to scale back offensive action progressively. Ukrainian capabilities are improving. Sound like a broken record, but at some point the balance of effective military power will shift to Ukraine.many people think iam being optimistic on Ukraine or hopeful. I get that. However let me say that I decided right from the start to say clearly what I thought was happening, even if it strayed from the norm. I’m trying to be as objective as possible.

 

all the Russian command instability during the Battle of the Donbas is a powerful indicator of the failure of the campaign in Putin’s own eyes so far. You don’t get rid of commanders or command structures you think are succeeding.