Powerful Pressure On Occupiers: AFU Encircle Bakhmut And Tokmak
- 6.10.2023, 7:58
Two important bridgeheads are turning into "cauldrons" for Russian troops.
There are only 16 kilometres between the positions of the Ukrainian defence forces and the temporarily occupied Tokmak. The Russian occupying army knows that it will have to surrender this bridgehead. But it is not worth taking the city "straight". It must be surrounded and emptied. The same should be done with Bakhmut, a settlement much more important and significant than Tokmak. The encirclement of the enemy group and the capture of several thousand of Putin's soldiers will cause great damage to the occupier. It will be for him.
The question of the destruction of the Kerch bridge, as well as the destruction of the Black Sea fleet of the occupier, is a question of the availability of missiles of the necessary range in the defence forces. It can be solved. Military expert, reserve colonel Petro Chernik expressed this opinion in an exclusive interview with obozrevatel.com.
- The military administration of Tokmak said that the officers of the Russian Federal Security Service had begun to leave the town. People have been banned from going to work for the next few days. Earlier, the mayor of occupied Melitopol, Ivan Fedorov, reported that the occupiers in Tokmak had begun to panic. They are pouring concrete into the trenches, building new defence lines, and a few weeks ago they started to remove authorities and educational institutions from the city. Can there really be panic? If so, does that mean Tokmak's dismissal is imminent?
- I can't answer whether there is panic out there. That would require accurate intelligence data. There is no such information in open sources. It could also be a throw-in. I don't want to question anyone's words, but interpreting information is a complicated thing.
If we go in a straight line, it is 16 kilometres from the nearest point of our positions to Tokmak. The artillery can already work on it. In fact, it is a strategic town, as it is the junction of major transport routes, both road and rail. Supply runs from here to the southern bridgehead.
Will the Russians reinforce Tokmak? They will. Will they fight for it? More likely yes than no. Although I allow for a "goodwill gesture".
But the main thing is that the enemy realises that he will lose the southern bridgehead. That is the main answer. And when, under what circumstances and if there will be a battle for Tokmak... Personally, I support the concept that it is not necessary to take it immediately. We should surround it and exhaust the contingent if they remain there. That's the right thing to do.
- What do you think is more important in terms of military strategy and tactics - taking Tokmak, at least to get there, or Bakhmut?
- Bakhmut is much more important and strategic. Why is that? Because it is a political issue. And a high-level political issue. Putin has announced that he has rewarded your unheroes. They can't leave it. They will fight for Bakhmut to the last bullet.
Thus, the blockade of Bakhmut would mean either the destruction of the occupation contingent, and there are at least 10,000 people there, or - best of all - if several thousand Russians in Bakhmut surrendered. This would indeed be a serious break in the enemy's motivation and a very serious blow to their propaganda. It would be very difficult for them to explain in the media why this happened. It would be decisive and painful.
Tokmak is crucial and important. But it is more important to reach the northern coast of the Sea of Azov, conditionally - Molochny Lyman - and cut off the land corridor. That is, conditionally, from the point of view of common sense and military strategy.
If we opt for a big blow and a big movement towards the Sea of Azov and Tokmak, the former is more reasonable.
- You said that the loss of Bakhmut would be "painful" for the occupier. The Kerch bridge could be another critical loss for the enemy. The navy's press service said the Russian invaders had stepped up their defence of the facility. We have all been hoping for a long time that this facility would be destroyed. Will it happen this year?
- Only the country's top military-political command knows. No one will reveal the plans and say what decisions will be taken.
It is true that the bridge must be destroyed. But there is a nuance - it has to be destroyed up to a few hundred metres. It is very long - 18 kilometres. Destroying one section does not solve anything, because after a while it will be repaired and it will work again.
It is necessary to submerge several hundred piers so that they cannot be repaired, in other words, it is necessary to put the bridge under fire. This problem can only be solved by long-range missiles. ATACMS can do the job. The distance from Kerch to Gulyai-Pole is 250 kilometres. ATACMS has a range of 300 kilometres. There are also long-range missiles that can be carried by the F-16, in particular the AGM-158 JASSM. There are also Storm Shadow and Scalp missiles.
It's not a matter of a dozen or so missile strikes. There will be several dozen missile strikes, and this should be a regular thing. A barge comes in to repair a bridge - destroyed, the next one comes in - destroyed. This will go on for several months. Only then will the real problems in Crimea begin.
- Can what you said about the Kerch Bridge also apply to the Black Sea Fleet of the occupying country?
- Yes. There's nothing to comment on. Long-range missiles, the AGM-158 JASSM that I mentioned. That's 980 kilometres. The whole of Crimea from north to south is 250 kilometres. With these missiles you can go 500 kilometres deep into the Black Sea. It is possible.
The only question is when the F-16s will arrive and whether this missile will be delivered. So far there is no information about the weapons that will be delivered to Ukraine with the F-16s. And, in general, this issue has died down. Everyone knows that we will get them, it is not known when.
- Ben Hodges, the former commander of the US Army in Europe, said that the Ukrainian General Staff is now completely outplaying the General Staff of the Russian Army. This gives our country an advantage in the counter-offensive, because the enemy does not know where to expect a new attack. At the same time, we see that in the last few days the enemy has launched counterattacks almost along the entire front line. Do you think they will not succeed?
- The fact that the 15th army in the world - and that is what we are in terms of combat potential - is attacking the second army in the world is already a phenomenon in the historical context. It is not unique, history knows such cases, but they are few. This is the first.
The second. War is a way of deception, it was and it will be. The hidden control of troops was described by Carl von Clausewitz. You should read him. Where the Napoleonic Wars are and where we are two centuries away, but everything is still relevant.
Third, the success or failure of the enemy's counter-attacks. Indeed, we have a dangerous distortion of reality. I don't know why we think that the enemy has no right to succeed. But it happens. It has never happened in history that one side advances endlessly and the other retreats endlessly.
We must learn to see things in a balanced way. The enemy may have partial successes and we should not be afraid of that. It is important for us to win the war, while battles can be lost. This is the reality.
Until their army is broken, the resilience of their soldier - and it is high - will be very different. We must learn to seek what the Romans spoke of - aurea mediocritas - the golden mean. Only then will we be in reality, and reality will help us win.