Ukraine finally calls it quits in Severodonetsk

After a month of holding out, the Ukrainian high command ordered the remaining defenders in Severodonetsk, the administrative capital of Luhansk, to beat a tactical retreat out of the city and fortify their defenses in Lysychansk, the sister city to the west of the Seversky Donets River. “Remaining in positions smashed to pieces over many months just for the sake of staying there does not make sense,” Luhansk Gov. Serhiy Haidai said.

It’s difficult to argue with his logic.

Russian forces were making slow progress in the Severodonetsk pocket for weeks, using their advantage in artillery to pummel everything in their path before sending ground forces into the area. Russia’s war plan, to put it in the most unsophisticated way possible, was to overwhelm the Ukrainian defenders with constant bombardment until they relented. For Ukraine, the only other alternative would have been to stick around and risk total encirclement — a strategy that would have been indefensible, if not insane, when the Ukrainian military is already losing perhaps 200 soldiers a day.

But the question must be asked: Why did it take Kyiv so long to cut its losses in a city Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky referred to as “dead” more than three weeks ago? What exactly was the motivation behind the decision to stay and fight despite the fact that the city’s three bridges were neutralized and the remaining evacuation routes were being squeezed?

The Ukrainians may have believed that maximum resistance was necessary to tie Russia’s combat units into a single area, giving the Ukrainian army extra time to work on fortifying its defenses in other parts of the Donbas. But that strategy isn’t cost-free for Ukrainian defenders, who are experiencing a rate of attrition that’s unsustainable. Is losing territory in a slow bleed really all that different than losing territory quickly? And if the former kills more of your personnel than the latter, how wise is it to draw out the battle?

Retired Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities whose recent assessment of the Donbas fight is well worth reading, told me Ukraine’s retreat from Severodonetsk was “the right call.” But he had critical words for the Ukrainian military leadership, particularly with respect to how long it took to call it quits.

“Ukraine lost large numbers of troops by extending its defense of Severodonetsk beyond when it was militarily clear the city would fall, and Kyiv gained nothing of strategic value in the delay,” Davis said. “By withdrawing only across the river to Lysychansk, Kyiv risks losing still more troops in a battle that they will also likely lose in the coming weeks.”

The next target for the Russians is Lysychansk, right across the river. Russian troops are reportedly 6 miles south of the city and are seeking to advance northwest as well. The war plan for Lysychansk looks a lot like the plan for Severodonetsk: hit Ukrainian troops hard with artillery, gradually cut them off from reinforcement and resupply, and over time persuade Ukrainian commanders that they are better off pulling out rather than risking the death or capture of their most experienced soldiers.

Whether this plan will work, only time will tell. This century’s first major war of attrition is destined to continue as long as the combatants, Russia and Ukraine, calculate it’s in their best interests to do so. We are nowhere near the light at the end of the tunnel.

Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.