The decision to persistently defend Avdiivka in the face of a shortage of men and ammunition may turn out be as costly for Ukraine as the loss of experienced fighters in Bakhmut, which undermined the summer counteroffensive. The Financial Times writes about this.
"In October and perhaps December and early January, it could be argued that Ukraine was causing disproportionately large amount of exhaustion to the Russian attackers. Now that argument is much harder to make," said military analyst Henry Schlottman.
In his opinion, the redeployment of the 3rd Assault Brigade to Avdiivka could still mean an intention to withdraw from the city. But Zelensky and Syrskyi may also have "rational reasons" to try to keep it. In particular, it would give them time to prepare defensive positions further west. And it could create a symbol of Ukraine's ability to withstand Russian forces, which would boost morale.
"The question for the Ukrainian leader and his high command is at what cost. They will have to find a "tricky" balance between preserving their forces and causing the enemy more damage than they themselves will suffer," said Mykola Bieleskov, a researcher at the National Institute for Strategic Studies of Ukraine.
According to Mick Ryan, a retired Australian Army Major General and military strategist, the battle of Avdiivka will provide insight into how Syrskyi can bridge "the gap between his president's desired political outcomes and Ukraine's depleted military resources."
"Like Bakhmut, the president seems reluctant to give up Avdiivka, even though the military situation indicates that withdrawal may now be the best option to preserve the remaining fighters. It will be very difficult not to give up the territory and keep the fighting forces in the current situation," Ryan said.
