By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The situation in Pokrovsk is challenging, with Russia deploying 170,000 troops to bolster its forces there. Despite the siege, Ukrainian forces are working to counter Russian advances. Ukraine has been responding by targeting Russian infrastructure, including oil facilities, which has resulted in a 20% drop in oil products on Russia’s domestic market. This year’s war has been deadlier for civilians, and concerns are growing over the impact of Russian attacks on energy infrastructure as winter approaches.
Read the original article here
Russia deploys 170,000 troops in battle for Pokrovsk. That’s the headline, the reality of the situation on the ground in Ukraine, and it’s a staggering number. It immediately begs the question, why so many? The answer, at least in part, seems to be a desperate attempt to seize a strategically important city before the harsh realities of winter set in. It’s a brute force strategy, throwing manpower at the problem, a tactic that has historically been the Russian way, a throwback to their Mongol roots. The sheer scale of the deployment is almost hard to fathom.
Pokrovsk, a city with a pre-war population of 60,000, is now the focus of intense fighting. One can only imagine the devastation as this once-charming Eastern European city, described as “quite pretty,” faces being reduced to rubble in the name of the “Russian mir.” It is a tragic irony. The human cost of this conflict is also highlighted. The potential for immense loss of life, both military and civilian, is deeply concerning. The loss of life and livelihoods should not be understated, where people are losing their life savings.
The deployment of such a vast force raises questions about the long-term viability of Russia’s strategy. There is a concern that this is a sign of desperation, a last-ditch effort to achieve a decisive victory. It raises the issue of the number of days of supplies available. Considering the potential casualties involved, the overall strategy comes into question.
This massive troop deployment also underscores the importance of Pokrovsk. It’s a key supply hub, and Russia’s capture would provide a critical logistics advantage. A major transport hub, and its loss would be a significant blow for Ukraine.
The numbers are eye-watering. To put it in perspective, this is a force equivalent to the size of some national armies. It’s almost the same as the entire German armed forces.
The effectiveness of this strategy is, however, questionable. Throwing waves of troops into battle, relying on sheer numbers rather than tactical skill, has a history of inefficiency. A 10:1 casualty ratio would be an enormous loss of life, but this type of sacrifice has happened before in the past.
The political considerations seem to be about creating “facts on the ground,” securing territory, and establishing a dominant position for future negotiations. There seems to be a desire to control strategic areas and exert influence over Ukraine’s future, possibly pushing Ukraine towards some form of vassal status. It is all about the land.
This situation requires an all hands on deck approach from the Ukrainians. Hopefully, Ukraine has fortified its next lines of defense in anticipation of this large-scale assault, ready to withdraw when the situation becomes untenable. With the large number of troops, this is a war of attrition. Supporting Ukraine with necessary equipment and aid is also an important factor.
Ultimately, the battle for Pokrovsk is a reflection of the larger conflict: a struggle for territory, resources, and influence, played out with immense human cost. This is the tragic reality of war.