Russian state news agency TASS reported that the power supply system was damaged during the bombing. Power went out in the city and some villages. Melitopol has been occupied by Russian troops since March last year. It is about 120 kilometers southeast of the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant.
The Russian occupiers made Melitopol, which used to have 150,000 inhabitants, the capital of the part of the Zaporizhia region they conquered – also because they failed to capture the regional capital of Zaporizhia itself.
IMAGO/SNA/Ria Novosti Damage after Ukrainian attack in Melitopol
Important logistic center
Melitopol is an important railway hub for the Russian military. The city has a rail link with Crimea, and from there the tracks lead to other cities in the region, which is of great importance for supplying the occupying troops. The railway depot that was targeted by the Ukrainian attack is the largest locomotive repair and maintenance facility in southeastern Ukraine.
Graphics: APA/ORF; Source: ISW
Former city mayor Ivan Fedorov reported new explosions in and around the city on Telegram in recent days. Fedorov was kidnapped after the city was taken by Russia the previous year and was released after a prisoner exchange. He is now in Zaporizhia.
Ukrainian wedge in occupied territories?
The bombing of Ukrainian troops is probably primarily aimed at preventing Russian supplies. Military experts expect a Ukrainian offensive to begin soon. One of the main target areas is the Zaporizhia region, where the Ukrainians could open a barrier between Russian forces if they advanced towards the sea – for example, via Melitopol. Furthermore, access to the sea would be restored and supply depots in Crimea would be within range of the new Ukrainian weapons systems.
Marcus Keupp, military economist at ETH Zurich, predicts such an offensive from Ukraine. In a highly regarded interview with the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung”, he sees the moment when such a maneuver is successful “when the Russian defeat becomes imminent”. He assumes that Russia will have lost the war in October because the army – based on calculations of losses so far and the remaining arsenal – is running out of tanks.
Just a feint?
Other military experts consider this to be a very bold and arrogant thesis. In general, however, it is assumed that Ukraine is consistently better equipped with new Western weapons than Russian troops, who have recently been increasingly using old tanks from Soviet times. Other experts still doubt that Melitopol can really be the target of an offensive.
The city is far behind the current front. And observers point to the successful offensive of the Ukrainians in September near Kharkiv, which came completely out of nowhere because everyone expected a push south towards Kherson. Ukraine could use such a ruse a second time.
Many factors for the Ukrainian offensive
On his Substack blog, former Australian general and military analyst Mick Ryan surmises that Ukraine opens up its offensive at various points, depending on where the weak points in Russia’s defenses are located. However, like other experts, he points to the fact that the Russian side has recently expanded its defense lines considerably.
It’s all about timing, Ryan writes. And a counter-offensive must also be coordinated with political goals – also to show allies that arms deliveries are doing a good job. Success also depends on how quickly the Ukrainian army can integrate the new weapons into its unit.
Weapons arrive from the West
In the last few days alone, it has been confirmed that Ukraine has delivered 18 Leopard 2 tanks and around 40 Marder infantry fighting vehicles from Germany, 14 Challenger 2 tanks from Great Britain, and Cougar armored trucks and Stryker armored personnel carriers from the US. Moscow also announced that Ukraine is now using US GLSDB-type precision missiles. The United States had promised Kiev the missiles with a range of 150 kilometers in February, but no delivery date was given at the time.
Bitter fight for Bachmut
Military observers agree that fighting around Bakhmut continues to play an important role. However, there are disagreements on whether this is an advantage or a disadvantage for Ukraine. The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) recently wrote that Russian forces had taken over five percent of Bakhmut in the past seven days and currently control nearly 65 percent of the area. However, there is no progress around the city. To the west, the remaining Ukrainian troops still have open supply and escape routes.
The control changes in Bakhmut in the last week.
While the flanks remain relatively stable, Russia continues to steadily advance towards the city centre. pic.twitter.com/EnNw6NLMHS
— War Mapper (@War_Mapper) March 28, 2023
Ukraine’s military leadership conceded a partial Russian victory in the battle for Bakhmut on Wednesday. “In the Bakhmut sector, the enemy continued its attacks on the city, partly successfully,” the General Staff in Kiev said in its daily situation report. However, details of Russian land gains were not provided.
Meanwhile, the head of Russia’s private Wagner army, Yevgeny Prigozhin, again claimed that the Ukrainian army was “annihilated” at Bakhmut. The battle for Bakhmut was the most important battle in Ukraine, and the “victory” of Wagner’s troops was “the greatest turning point in this war and in modern history in general”, he boasted on the Telegram news channel.
Portal/93rd Mechanized Brigade “Kholodny Yar” Bakhmut as debris field
Strategic advantage for which side?
When it comes to the importance of Bachmut, opinions differ. It is clear that the city is, in principle, of little importance in terms of military strategy. The fight has become symbolically charged with the duration of the fight and the fact that Moscow needs a victory politically. And critics say that Kiev could have this “game” imposed on it – at the price of extremely high losses.
About me? To me Bakhmut still looks like a politically motivated meat grinder who hasn’t accomplished much except denying the Russians a victory at great cost to the AFU.
20/21
— John Helin (@J_JHelin) March 27, 2023
Phillips Payson O’Brien, professor of military strategy at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland has long argued in the opposite direction: by controlling Bakhmut, Ukraine is trapping Russian forces and inflicting extremely heavy casualties on the attackers. As long as the loss ratio is one to five, as rumored, the defense is worth it. He relies on assessments by the Ukrainian military leadership, who would know when a withdrawal is due, he writes in an entry on the Substack blog.
Attack as bad defense?
He also points out that a few dozen kilometers south of Bakhmut, in the city of Avdiivka, the picture is similar. There, too, the Russian army failed to encircle the city, which had already been destroyed.
In terms of military strategy, it makes sense from a Ukrainian perspective to keep large Russian troops in offensive efforts, writes O’Brien. If Russia reinforced the defense lines, it would make future counter-offensive efforts much more difficult: “The biggest danger to a Ukrainian counter-offensive is that the Russians will do what is smart for them – go on the defensive and pass time resting and preparing. his troops for the Ukrainian attack.”