This week, Russian forces made their most significant breakthrough in nine months — but at a heavy cost.
They took the small Eastern Ukrainian city of Avdiivka, ending a brutal battle that has been raging since October. While undoubtedly a setback for Ukraine, the fall of Avdiivka was not an unambiguous victory for Russia.
Ukrainian military commanders estimate that 47,000 Russians were killed or injured in the battle, which is significantly higher than the pre-war population of Avdiivka of around 32,000. The estimated death toll in the battle, 17,000, would be higher than the Soviet army’s during the 10-year war in Afghanistan.
Those numbers are impossible to verify and very possibly exaggerated, but there’s no doubt the losses were exceedingly high and that this is a point of sensitivity for the Russian government. (This week, a pro-war Russian military blogger died reportedly by suicide after being forced to remove a post criticizing military commanders for the high casualties sustained in the battles.) Britain’s Ministry of Defense also estimates the Russians lost more than 400 tanks in the battle.
Given those losses, it’s natural to wonder whether Avdiivka — not even one of the larger cities in Donetsk province, much less Ukraine — was a Pyrrhic victory for the Russians.
Yes, in both Bakhmut and Avdiivka, the Russians demonstrated that with enough time, artillery ammunition, and human lives, they can take a small Ukrainian city, almost entirely demolishing it in the process.
But is this a sustainable strategy for victory over the second-largest country, in terms of land area, in Europe?
“I do not think it’s sustainable, but it is what I think that they’ll do,” retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, former commander of the US Army in Europe, told Vox, saying the war would come down to whether Ukraine could count on continued Western support. “They’ll do it because they can see that we are starting to waver.”
The key factor when it…
Read the full article here