To put it bluntly, although the recent ** momentum of the Russian army seems to be very fierce and won the battle of Avdiivka, it may be just a "flash in the pan", and it cannot even be ruled out that this round of the Russian army ** is a possibility of "returning to the light" on the battlefield in Ukraine.
The victory in the Battle of Avdiivka not only boosted Russia's morale, but also made some experts and big Vs on a specific field excited as if they had "beaten chicken blood", and they asserted in an undoubted tone: Ukraine is about to collapse, and Russia "will win".
My personal opinion is that some so-called experts on the field have been carried away by this "tragic victory" in which the Russian side paid a huge price and whose political significance is greater than its military significance, and they have lost their basic judgment. Can't they see the "factors behind this victory" of the Russian side? Can't see the strategic "passivity" of the Russian side? What does it mean to be helpless from repeated attacks on the rear?
Russia**, which comes once every six years, is coming, which is undoubtedly the top priority of all demands for Putin's ruling team. In terms of its political significance, it is no less than the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, because the two are highly interrelated.
Some people may say that even if the Russian army is passive on the battlefield, it will not affect Putin's re-election. But don't forget that in the current political ecology of Russia, for Putin, it is not a question of winning, but whether the win is beautiful and whether it can enhance the "legitimacy" of the next six years of power.
There are all kinds of indications that for the battle of Avdiivka, Putin's ruling team has been planning strategically for a long time, and it must have repeatedly deduced tactically. For example, at the strategic level, it is necessary to create a "war spillover" at all costs in order to divert the West's attention, energy, financial resources and military aid from the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield.
At first, Putin seemed to have the idea of using military coups in some countries in West Africa to "spill over" the Russian-Ukrainian war with the help of the lofty slogan of "anti-neocolonialism". So, there was no fight in West Africa.
After the situation in West Africa did not develop in the expected direction, the "strategic game" shifted to the Middle East. As a result, three days after Hamas launched an attack on Israel on October 7 last year, that is, on October 10, the Russian army carried out a large-scale ** campaign against Avdiivka.
After the start of the Battle of Avdiivka, the Ukrainian army gradually showed its inferiority, the most important reason being the shortage of artillery shells and the almost stagnant assistance of the advanced ** of the West. Therefore, it is of little significance to increase the number of troops and continue the fierce battle. In addition, Zelensky may have the "intention" of using this failure to "coerce" the Western camp to approve aid to Ukraine as soon as possible, so Zelensky made up his mind to change the commander, and announced the withdrawal of the Ukrainian army from Avdiivka through the mouth of the new commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army, Syrsky.
From a purely military point of view, the Russian army is the attacking side, and the Ukrainian army is the defending side. And the Ukrainian army has been building fortifications here for nearly 10 years, and there is no need to say which of the two sides has suffered the most losses. To put it bluntly, the battle of Avdiivka of the Russian army was a "pyrrhic victory". And the battlefield situation after the Battle of Avdiivka is enough to show that the Russian army may already be "at the end of the crossbow" on the battlefield in Ukraine.
In fact, since the Ukrainian army abandoned Avdiivka on February 17, the Russian army has only advanced 5 kilometers to the west. How can such a "result" prove that the Russian army has the strength to continue to advance westward and take Kyiv? Moreover, after taking Avdiivka, the Russian army will be able to reach Kyiv like a bamboo, causing Ukraine to collapse? Obviously, such a statement is also difficult to be logically consistent.
On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale offensive against Ukraine, and the surprise attack on Kyiv was like no one, but it did not take Kyiv either. At that time, Ukraine's regular army was less than 200,000 people, and now the Ukrainian army has at least quadrupled in size, and it is basically equipped with NATO**. Just ask, it didn't lead to the collapse of Ukraine at that time, and how could Ukraine, which is now much stronger, be vulnerable?
To put it bluntly, the reason why Putin wants to take Avdiivka before the first is not because of its military significance, but because of its "political significance".
As early as November 2022, Russia has included Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia into Russia's territory, but the embarrassing thing is that the Russian army has not yet fully occupied the administrative territory of these four places.
For example, Kherson and Zaporozhye still have a considerable part of the land in the hands of the Ukrainians. Even in the Donbas region, which was separated in 2014, there are still territories controlled by the Ukrainian army. Avdiivka, for example, is only 20 kilometers from the city of Donetsk. So, taking Avdiivka is symbolic. That is, as the saying goes, "one handsome covers a hundred ugliness".
And in terms of the overall shape of the battlefield, Russia is losing its advantages in many aspects. For example, in the half month from February 17 to March 2, when the Ukrainian army abandoned Avdiivka, the Ukrainian army destroyed 15 Russian warplanes and a large patrol ship in the rear of the Russian army such as Crimea and the Sea of Azov.
What does it mean that the Russian army is helpless in the face of an attack from the rear? Illustrating that Russia's air and sea superiority has been lost. At the same time, it also shows that the Ukrainian army has a NATO ** more advanced than Russia's, and even a "generational difference" advantage.
To put it bluntly, this is still the result of the F16 fighter and long-range missiles that have not yet been installed in the Ukrainian army, if more advanced ** systems enter the war, Russia will obviously fall into greater passivity.
As far as the game level of this Russia-Ukraine war is concerned, the war in the Middle East shows that the "dividends" of "war spillover" are about to run out. And expecting the United States and the West to abandon Ukraine so that Russia can easily win only shows that they have a half-understanding of the direction of development of the world situation and the strategic methods of the United States and the West.
In fact, judging from Macron's "NATO troops" theory and the "recording gate" incident in which German officials discussed assisting Ukraine's "Taurus" long-range missiles and helping it destroy the Crimean bridge, Western support for Ukraine will only strengthen rather than weaken.
In recent times, to be precise, after deciding to participate in Russia, Putin has repeatedly unleashed some "exciting" visions. For example, the "Russian world" will be rebuilt, Russia has become strong again, the time has come for Russia to belong, etc.
Perhaps it is precisely because of Putin's bold words, as well as the fact that the Russian army won the Battle of Avdiivka on the battlefield, that some big Vs on a specific field really think that Russia is strong enough to easily collapse Ukraine.
Don't you know that although Putin has said some encouraging words, he himself is very sober, he knows that Russia is in a strategic dilemma, and he is even extremely eager to "solve the situation". So, while showing a tough stance, Putin is also softening his body.
On March 6, Russian press secretary Dmitry Peskov said: We love the Germans, we have a difficult history with them, but the Germans gave us two empresses, and we thank them. Russia will always be a friend of the Germans.
On the evening of 6 March, at the closing ceremony of the World Youth Day in Sochi, Putin said of the United States that the United States is a vast and independent country that has become a superpower thanks to the ingenuity of the American people. In both world wars, we were allies of the United States, and Russia and the United States stood together in the fight against Nazism and fascism.
Although Putin has since criticized the current US policy, such an expression is intriguing in itself. To put it bluntly, whether it is Peskov's rhetoric about Germany or Putin's tone when commenting on the United States, it is necessary to "taste", and only by tasting and combining the game situation inside and outside the battlefield can we make a "reliable" prediction of the direction and outcome of this Russian-Ukrainian war, rather than taking it for granted that Ukraine will lose and Russia will win.