comment: >
  
  CNN reported last night a full Ukraine retreat from the city. Witnessed by reporters.
context: What's that twitter user's source though? >
  
  Most of it is found on telegram channels run by both pro Ukraine users and pro Russian users, including on the ground soldiers who post updates when they shouldnt. Then you have the official sources like ISW, Ukraine and Russian releases. On top of that you have people who have nothing better to do but look at every source available and compile it into easy to digest rough estimates of the battle lines and that's what usually gets posted to Twitter and Reddit. 
  It's never going to be exact and things can change in an hour but it's probably the best you can get. The official sources almost always lag behind so a lot of people just go off recent combat footage and look for landmarks to confirm, and if you've ever seen some of the best players of geoguesser I wouldn't doubt that they are getting it spot on most of the time. >
  
  Internal information in chain of command linked to that area should have that information.
  And, will do was is necessary to not communicate it in real time nor fully after delay.
  Enemy could identify how information travel and how they react to it.
  As simple civilians, we should just "wait and see". >
  
  Yeah you are right. Official information lags behind for a very good reason, but with the amount of footage that this war has produced and does produce every day the followers of the conflict have a fairly good grasp on what is happening on the ground day by day. But with all of it it is just a wait and see until anything is confirmed. >
  
  Headline doesn't match the content.
  "Donetsk governor Pavlo Kyrylenko said the situation in the town was "difficult" and that Russian troops were advancing from various directions, adding that the Russians had sustained a large number of casualties, including members of the Wagner mercenary group."
  The right one would be something like "Ukrainian and Russian troops are still fighting in Soledar" >
  
  Russia couldn’t win in Bakmut so they need a new “poster contest battlefield” to win on for propaganda purposes back home.  Expect less and less rational attacks by Russia as they attempt to take any land at all and rationalize why it’s so important later.
  For fuck’s sake - they’re fighting over a salt mine.  They’re seriously trying to convince Russians at home that a war against a salt mine in Ukraine is integral to eliminating the Ukrainian threat to Russia somehow.  It’s complete fallacy and delusion. >
  
  
  A lair where they can store weapons may make sense. Think of hookers, cocaine, and casinos
  
  More like a tomb with all of the above, given that Ukraine has complete data on all entrances and exits from that bunker. >
  
  What you say would be true for any other fortification.  
  There might be better fortified places on Earth.  Gibraltar and Cheyenne mountain come to mind.  Volcanic lava tubes in Hawaii.  Iwo Jima and Okinawa.  
  I have never been to Ukraine.  Is there a better place for a criminal mercenary group to set up a lair? >
  
  
  I have never been to Ukraine. Is there a better place for a criminal mercenary group to set up a lair?
  
  Yes. Any place that is not within 50 to 100 kilometers of the front line is a far better supply hub than a place directly on the front line, where troops seeking resupply can be bombed, mortared and shelled ad nauseum as they go in and out. The salt mines were not key to Ukraine's defense of this region, and they are not going to help Russia's supply situation in this war. Soledar's value is purely in its flanking status and resupply road to the north of Bakhmut, along with any morale boost Russia can squeeze out of its capture in the news. >
  
  The borders of Donetsk province is about 50 to 100 km from Soledar.  Speculating on Prigozhin's intent only makes sense if we look at what he might consider a win.  
  Any vehicle driving down a road or railroad can be shelled while it is on the road at any point on the road.  The life expectancy of a truck driver should go up if they do not need to stop the truck while running the gauntlet.  
  Hitting a truck with a mortar while it is moving is tricky.  We have (rather Sweden sells) heat seaking mortar shells so it probably can be done.  The timing will be much easier on the open highway.  If the truck goes faster or slower the shell curves that way.  The mortar crew will be in range of Wagner artillery if they set up near the mine entrance.  
  Any army units will always have the problem of getting shelled while they are on the way to the front or at the front after they get there.  A secure barracks would allow mercenaries to cut the terror down to 40 hours a week. >
  
  
  Any army units will always have the problem of getting shelled while they are on the way to the front or at the front after they get there. A secure barracks would allow mercenaries to cut the terror down to 40 hours a week.
  
  If the mines were that important for staging, then Ukraine would have had a huge force resting at Soledar, and would have defended it more earnestly. The truth is that the salt mines just aren't very helpful to either side. >
  
  Ukraine ran out of ammunition.  That decreases the value of secure depots a great deal.  Despite that Ukraine appears to be fighting quite hard.  
  Suppose hypothetically the war cease-fires for a year and then resumes.  Suppose Lockheed delivers 9000 M31 and 4000 Javelin missiles over that year.  Sticking a few hundred pods in the salt mine makes a lot of sense for Ukraine in that context.  Right now they are shooting them as they come.  
  Ukraine did not build up vast defenses at Soledar for the same reasons that nations almost never build up point defensive fortifications anymore.  It is widely reported by historians as a mistake that nations made in the past.  The Soledar base would have done nothing for Mariupol.  The azovstal steel plant was a fortification too. Soledar would have done nothing for the defense of Kyiv.  The Russians were across the Dnieper at Kherson.    The northern and southern fronts would have met up somewhere west of Dnipro rendering the resources sunk into Soledar useless.  
  Prigozhin is running a mercenary company.  The Wagner soldiers are not fighting for a homeland.  They have no reason to care if Ukraine sacks Belgorod while they are playing slots in a casino in a salt mine. >
  
  
  Ukraine ran out of ammunition.
  
  So did Russia. Neither side has vast quantities of shells needing extra protection anymore. They're both using dispersed stockpiles that require nearly constant replenishment as munitions are produced and imported.
  
  Ukraine did not build up vast defenses at Soledar for the same reasons that nations almost never build up point defensive fortifications anymore. It is widely reported by historians as a mistake that nations made in the past. 
  
  Ukraine is defending this line quite forcefully. Fixed defenses aren't the point. When they decide to put their foot down and defend an area, they entrench it and station a lot of troops there. If Soledar was a strategically important storage area, Ukraine would have put more men in the town and defended it more viciously. They did not do this because it's not as important for defending their overall line as Bakhmut is. The salt mines did not factor into either side's control of the town. >
  
  I see a solution in this.  Russia can just tell themselves they won the war in Ukraine and go home. >
  
  I will nominate you for the peace prize this year >
  
  If Russia does it, might as well. >
  
  If you have some time Perun has a breakdown on the Russian culture of lying. It’s a bit long but interesting >
  
  
  If you have some time Perun has a breakdown on the Russian culture of lying.
  
  Without taking anything from Perun's great work, the notion that Russians are merely lying all the time is a misconception. 
  For lies to exist, so must truth.
  In their postmodernist theater of the absurd, there is no concept of truth. There are only symbols and signals, us and them.
  Words don't have meaning in Russia anymore. Any word can be a symbol, onto which the meaning is projected.
  War, for example, is a symbol of Bad Things, whereas Russia is a symbol of Good. Therefore, Russia cannot wage a War with another country. It must be a "special military operation".
  Nazis are the symbol of Evil, which is Bad. Therefore, whoever Russia fights are Nazis, because Russia is Good. Unlike Russia, Nazis wage a War against Russia. 
  Other countries can do bad things to Russia, like sanctions. Therefore, sanctions are War, and so is any help to Russia's enemies (i.e. whoever Russia is not-at-war with). Thus NATO is fighting a War with Russia, whereas Russia is conducting an operaion.
  Defending is a symbol of Good, so Russia is always on the defensive, and its invasions are Defense. Defending whom? The good people, from the bad ones. You guessed it, it's to defend Russians from the Nazis.
  People who are not Russian are not Good. The West is thus Not Good, and is a symbol of What Russia Defends From. But The West isn't a-priori Nazi, that depends on choices (i.e. the extent to which an entity currently fulfills Russian agenda/the extent to which it is controlled by Russia). 
  People who, for example, speak Russian, but say they aren't Russian must be Nazis, because they Choose to be Not Good.  But Donald Trump is Russian, for all intents and purposes. Or almost as good.
  Stalin was the leader of Russia, so he is Good. Since he was the leader when Russia won a Defense against Nazis, Stalin is The Best Person To Ever Live. Thus, not only Stalin was Good, but Good is Stalin.
  Anyone who disagrees is, of course, a Nazi.
  USSR was Russia and therefore Good. Holodomor was somehing USSR did, so it must be Good, or, at most, a Mistake.
  Mistakes are not bad, because Good can make Mistakes. But most often, it is a Mistake to think that a Mistake is a Mistake. In fact, it was Part Of The Plan, which is a symbol of Future Good.
  Anything you might not like that originates from Good (i.e. Russia) is Part Of The Plan. "What's happening in Ukraine" (a euphemism meaning that it isn't going well)? Part Of The Plan, a necessary step to Defend.
  And so on, and so on. In the end, everyone, from the top propagandist to the ordinary TV watcher speaks incomprehensible, utter gibberish, a mishmash of symbols whose meaning isn't even clear to those who utter it.
  It defies translation because you can't translate a symbol. It is ephemeral, its meaning defined in a parallel, emotional realm, detached from facts and rules of logic.
  This is how even individual words Russian media says seem to contradict themselves in absurd twists.
  For example, it's a page right out of Russia's playbook to criticize a political statement, made by politicians in an international political body by saying it's "POLITICIZED". 
  If you think if of it, WTF does that even mean?
  It happens because in the Russian construct of postmodernist apathy, important words eventually lose all meaning and become symbols.
  Russian regime wants to keep people from participating in politics altogether (God forbid they protest, run for office, or even vote for anything but the "default" choice!). So political becomes a symbol meaning something vaguely bad, dishonest, dirty. That's why so many Russians will tell you they "don't care" about politics, or that they are "outside politics", and let's "don't get political". Politics is bad, something an upstanding citizen wouldn't want to be associated with. Leave it to politicians. 
  Dictators are politicians, but someone has to be, so that the citizens won't have to get their hands dirty. Poor, hardworking dictators take that burden solely on themselves. They eliminate all possibility of political opposition, true, and that's good — because politics is bad, and the less of it, the better.
  Consequently, out of all politicians, dictators are the best kind — the least political. 
  And of course, you slam anything you don't like as politicized. Like being called out for your shit. Ow, that's political, can't do that!
  The message is ultimately for the internal audience: a reminder that calling out government's bullshit is something political, ergo bad. Those dirty, lying, scheming politicians (in other countries, we have none left — just the dictator and his puppets) — they do it, of course. Take note and don't be like them.
  After all, why politicize your life? Let's not get political.
  Same goes for diplomacy — it smells like politics, so the good-faith diplomacy must mean you're getting fucked by those evil politicians. So it's a duty for the dictator to only do diplomacy in bad faith: to deceive and lie, to the point of outright gaslighting. 
  Negotiations are, without any ambiguity, a symbol of tricking. It's what weak fools participate in to be screwed by Russia. That's why Russia says they always want negotiations: because the only kind they do is the one where they gain and you lose.  
  Speaking of losing, losing is a symbol of  weak, and weak is bad. 
  Russia never loses. Hence the "tactical regrouping" from the entire Kharkiv region, "moving to more favorable frontiers" when abandoning Lyman, making "hard decisions" when retreating from Kherson. Russia can't be kicked out of those places, because that's a loss, loss is bad, and therefore, it's not what Russia does. 
  Conversely, winning is a symbol of strong, and strong is good. Since good is Russia, its opponents are never strong, even though they pose an existential threat to Russia on account of not being Russia. 
  That's why Russian military strategy is focused on capturing cities rather then whatever military commanders would say is an important strategic goal. Because capturing a city is winning, and Russia must always win, on account of winning being good. Holding such-and-such geographical feature isn't winning, no matter how important it is for strategy, because for a symbol to matter, it must have a name. The more the name is known, the more important it is. 
  That's a self-fulfiling prophecy effect though: a place which Russia fails to capture with repeated attempts becomes well-known due to that, and therefore, important symbolically. Hence Russia needs to be winning in Bakhmut because it is losing in Bakhmut.
  
  As Orwell correctly predicted in his brilliant essay titled Politics and the English Language, deterioration of language leads to deterioration of thought. And thus Russians are losing the ability to think in any language.
  Hence the logic-defying attacks on the strategically insignificant Bakhmut and Soledar, as well as repeated claims that Soledar has been taken while there's active fighting going on.
  As already noted, taking cities is a symbol of strong army. Since Wagner is a strong army, capturing Bakhmut is a symbol of Wagner's strength, with  Soledar victory in particular being a symbol of Prigozhin's prestige. So while Prigozhin exists as a political entity, Russia is winning in Soledar. 
  Of course they would say that they took Soledar well before that's a done deal (assuming it will ever be a done deal). Their people must know that any news of cities being taken are a lie.
  Like Kherson. Ukrainian army didn't take Kherson, because Ukrainians are Nazis, and therefore, weak. It's just that the Russian army regrouped away from it.  
  Once you start thinking in symbols instead of facts, you can both explain and predict what Russians will do. That's why they throw a fit when Russian monuments are removed. To them, the symbols are them, it's where they feel they persist, as if those statues and words were horcruxes.
  By living in a symbolic reality, they can ignore all the shit happening around them (literally, given the lack indoor  toilets in the poorer regions the conscripts are from). But dying in that Matrix while marching for Soledar does mean dying in the real world too.
  Sadly, taking Ukrainian lives along in the process.
  
  ^(by /u/alterom for Reddit, corrections welcome.) >
  
  It is an excellent analysis, more people need to read it. >
  
  Thank you!
  I have no idea where to post this for higher visibility at the moment. The good news (also, the sad news) is that what I wrote here is not likely to change in Russia for as long as that state exists in its current form - and, possibly, much longer. >
  
  I think it can make a good YouTube video if you decide to spread the info.