October 2023 — February 2024

Operational Context & Initial Assault

The withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Avdiivka, completed on 25 February 2024, represents a significant tactical shift in the ongoing conflict with Russia and highlights the evolving nature of operations within the Donbas region. While initially presented as a key objective for bolstering Ukraine’s defensive lines and potentially disrupting Russian logistics, the protracted and costly assault on Avdiivka ultimately proved unsustainable due to a combination of factors including superior Russian fortifications, manpower reserves, and strategic intent.

Prior to the full-scale offensive launched in late November 2023, Ukrainian forces, primarily spearheaded by units of the 47th Separate Assault Brigade and elements from the 112th Separate Rifles Brigade, had been attempting to encircle the town. Initial gains were made, but Russian defenses, heavily reinforced with personnel from the 38th Motorized Rifle Division and bolstered by artillery support from units like the 39th Combined Arms Centre, proved remarkably resilient. Despite inflicting heavy casualties on Russian forces – estimates suggest over 1,000 soldiers killed or wounded – Ukrainian advances stalled repeatedly, hampered by intense attrition and a lack of sufficient reserves to sustain the offensive.

The decision to withdraw was not taken lightly. Intelligence reports indicated that Russia had committed substantial reinforcements, potentially exceeding 10,000 personnel, bolstering its defensive positions around Avdiivka. The protracted battle drained Ukrainian resources, diverting attention and manpower from other critical sectors of the front line. While analysts debate the strategic rationale behind the Russian offensive – some argue it was a deliberate attempt to demoralize Ukrainian forces and test defenses – the outcome clearly favored Russia's operational objectives, demonstrating the vulnerability of concentrated attacks against heavily fortified positions. The withdrawal marked a shift towards a more defensive posture for Ukraine in this sector, allowing for resource consolidation and strategic redeployment.

Ukrainian Defensive Posturing at Avdiivka – A Detailed Analysis

The withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Avdiivka, a strategically important town near Donetsk city, in late March 2024 marked a significant shift in the dynamics of the ongoing conflict and prompted intense debate regarding its justification. Initially conceived as a probing attack by Russian forces aiming to test Ukrainian defenses and potentially draw them into a wider offensive, the operation rapidly escalated into a protracted and costly engagement for Ukraine.

The Initial Assault & Rapid Gains

In late February 2024, Russian forces launched a concentrated assault on Avdiivka, supported primarily by the 1st Guards Siberian Division and elements of the Wagner Group. Leveraging superior artillery support and utilizing combined arms tactics – including waves of infantry assaults supported by BMP-3s and T-90 tanks – they achieved remarkably rapid gains against what were initially perceived as stretched Ukrainian defenses. Within a week, Russian forces had penetrated the first defensive lines, forcing a redeployment of reserves to reinforce the threatened sector. Initial estimates suggested Ukrainian losses of up to 150 soldiers in the initial phase of the assault.

Prolonged Stalemate & Mounting Casualties

However, Ukrainian forces quickly stabilized the situation and established a robust defensive perimeter around Avdiivka. Despite repeated attempts at breakthroughs by the Russians, characterized by intense urban combat, the initiative remained firmly with Ukraine. Over the subsequent weeks, the battle became a grinding stalemate, with both sides suffering significant casualties. Precise figures are difficult to ascertain due to the ongoing nature of the conflict and Ukrainian reluctance to publicly disclose losses, but estimates range from 500-800 Ukrainian soldiers killed or wounded, alongside substantial equipment losses – including dozens of armored vehicles.

Strategic Reasoning Behind Withdrawal

The eventual withdrawal was attributed by Ukrainian officials to an unsustainable attrition rate and a strategic reassessment based on the evolving situation. While analysts believe the initial Russian objectives were somewhat overblown, the prolonged engagement had exhausted Ukrainian resources, particularly manpower and ammunition, while allowing Russia to consolidate its gains in the surrounding area. The decision was framed not as a defeat but as a tactical withdrawal to preserve broader defensive lines and concentrate forces for future operations.

The Role of Heavy Artillery and Mine Warfare

The Ukrainian withdrawal from Avdiivka, completed on 12 May 2024, was significantly influenced by prolonged and intense Russian artillery campaigns, coupled with extensive mine warfare operations. While the initial assault focused on infantry advances, the subsequent defensive stalemate demonstrated the devastating impact of Russia’s heavy firepower.

Throughout April and early May, units of the 5th Guards Separate Armoured Brigade (Russia) and supporting elements from the 20th Army Tank Brigade relentlessly pounded Avdiivka with Grad multiple rocket launchers, BM-21 mortars, and artillery support delivered by batteries of 152mm howitzers. Intelligence reports suggest that Russia concentrated fire on key Ukrainian defensive lines held by the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade, utilizing precision strikes to degrade their capabilities. Estimates from Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence indicate that over 300,000 artillery rounds were expended during the offensive phase, a staggering rate indicative of a sustained and prioritized effort.

Crucially, Russia deployed extensive minefields – reportedly exceeding 10 square kilometers surrounding Avdiivka – utilizing both Soviet-era and more recently produced mines. These minefields, meticulously laid by units like the 76th Separate Guards Minearmooured Brigade (Russia), choked off Ukrainian attempts to reinforce or dislodge Russian forces. The persistent threat of mine contamination severely hampered mobility and significantly increased casualties amongst Ukrainian troops, including those from the 54th separate mechanized brigade. While precise casualty figures remain contested, reports indicate heavy losses due to these obstacles, contributing to a strategic impasse. The protracted battle highlighted the vulnerability of defensive positions against sustained, coordinated artillery and mine warfare campaigns.

Logistical Bottlenecks & Supply Chain Strain

The Ukrainian withdrawal from Avdiivka, completed on February 25th, 2024, was significantly influenced by a catastrophic breakdown in logistical support, revealing critical vulnerabilities within the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF). While initially presented as a strategic defensive maneuver, analysis suggests that stretched supply lines and an inability to adequately resupply advancing units played a pivotal role in the decision.

Prior to the withdrawal, reports from February 20th indicated severe shortages of ammunition – specifically 155mm shells – affecting units like the 47th Separate Motorized Brigade and elements of the 34th Mechanized Brigade operating around Avdiivka. Intelligence estimates suggest that Ukraine was consistently falling short of its required ammunition intake, with some reports pointing to a shortfall of as much as 60% compared to frontline needs. This shortage wasn’t solely due to attrition; logistical delays compounded the problem, exacerbated by Russian efforts to disrupt supply routes through intensified electronic warfare and targeted strikes against convoys.

The UAF relied heavily on resupply via the Shakhtarsk-Druzhkovka route, a critical artery for delivering supplies to the eastern front. However, this route became increasingly untenable due to heavy shelling from Russian forces utilizing multiple rocket launchers (MLRS) systems like the BM-21 Grad and BM-30 Smerch. Furthermore, reports highlighted difficulties in maintaining adequate fuel supplies – a crucial element given the operation’s reliance on armored vehicles – leading to operational delays and hindering maneuverability. The withdrawal underscores the critical interdependence between military capability and robust logistical infrastructure, a weakness now starkly exposed during this intense phase of the conflict.

Shifting Frontlines & the Expansion of the Offensive

The Ukrainian withdrawal from Avdiivka, completed on 25 February 2024, represents a significant tactical shift in the ongoing conflict and was driven by a confluence of factors beyond mere battlefield losses. While initially framed as a strategic objective – aiming to stretch Russian forces and disrupt their logistics – the intensity of the assault, coupled with mounting casualties and logistical challenges, ultimately led to a withdrawal that many analysts viewed as premature.

The 108th Separate Mountain Assault Brigade, leading the Ukrainian offensive, faced unexpectedly fierce resistance from elements of the 31st Mechanized Division of the Russian Eastern Group, bolstered by significant reinforcements – including reportedly up to 20,000 troops – supplied through newly established routes bypassing previous defensive lines. Initial reports suggested a ratio of approximately 80 Ukrainian soldiers per 1 Russian soldier engaged in intense urban combat. However, the prolonged engagement and the scale of Russian reinforcement significantly strained Ukrainian supply chains and exposed vulnerabilities within the assault formations.

Crucially, the withdrawal wasn't solely due to losses; logistical bottlenecks – highlighted in Section 2 – proved crippling. Reports indicate that ammunition resupply was consistently delayed, and medical evacuation routes were overwhelmed, leading to a substantial increase in casualties amongst the advancing troops. The decision to pull back, therefore, appears to have been driven by a strategic reassessment recognizing unsustainable attrition rates and a diminished prospect of achieving a decisive breakthrough against heavily fortified Russian positions. This withdrawal highlights the evolving nature of the conflict and underscores the critical importance of logistics and sustained reinforcement for Ukrainian offensive operations.

Strategic Implications for the Eastern Ukraine Campaign (2024-2026)

The recent withdrawal from Avdiivka, a protracted and costly operation involving significant elements of the 54th Separate Motorized Brigade and other units of the Ukrainian Ground Forces, presents crucial strategic implications for the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. While initially framed as a key objective to disrupt Russian advances and tie down resources, the prolonged engagement ultimately exposed vulnerabilities within Ukrainian defenses and highlighted unsustainable operational tempo.

The battle’s outcome – estimated losses exceeding 1,000 personnel and substantial materiel damage – underscores the limitations of relying solely on attrition against Russia's continued reinforcement capabilities. Intelligence estimates suggest Russia has consistently rotated significant reinforcements—including elements of the 38th Combined Arms Army and potentially Wagner Group affiliates—into the Avdiivka area, effectively negating Ukrainian gains. Furthermore, the intense focus on this single sector diverted crucial defensive resources from other vulnerable points along the front line, particularly in the north around Chasiv Yar.

Looking ahead to 2024-2026, Ukraine’s strategy must shift towards a more resilient and layered defense. This necessitates bolstering fortifications along key axes of attack – prioritizing areas beyond Avdiivka – developing robust counterattack capabilities, and critically, securing long-term supply chain resilience. The experience gained at Avdiivka has revealed the urgent need for increased armored vehicle production and a greater emphasis on mechanized assault tactics adapted to the evolving battlefield dynamics. Failure to adapt will likely result in continued high casualties and further strategic setbacks for Ukraine.

FAQ

Question 1: Why did Ukrainian forces withdraw from Avdiivka?

Answer text: The withdrawal from Avdiivka was a complex decision driven by multiple factors. Primarily, Russian forces mounted an unexpectedly intense and sustained offensive utilizing waves of mobilized troops and heavy artillery – a tactic largely unpredicted by Western analysts. Ukrainian forces were significantly overstretched across the front lines, and sustaining a prolonged defense in such a concentrated area threatened to collapse their defensive network entirely. Furthermore, the strategic value of Avdiivka itself was debated; while it offered tactical advantages for probing Russian defenses, the cost – in terms of manpower and equipment – appeared disproportionately high relative to any potential gains. The withdrawal allowed Ukraine to consolidate its forces and shift resources to more critical areas.

Question 2: Was this a strategic blunder or a necessary retreat?

Answer text: The question of whether it was a “blunder” versus a “necessary retreat” is intensely debated. From one perspective, the intensity of the Russian assault caught Ukraine off guard, and the premature commitment to defending Avdiivka – driven by a desire to deny Russia any territorial gains - proved unsustainable. Critics argue that more robust defensive preparations could have mitigated the situation. However, from another angle, it represents a pragmatic tactical adjustment. Recognizing the unsustainable nature of the defense, the withdrawal allowed Ukraine to avoid catastrophic losses and redeploy forces to defend key positions like Bakhmut and slower-moving operations elsewhere. It was a calculated risk prioritizing overall strategic objectives over holding a single, strategically vulnerable town.

Question 3: What does the Russian tactic of mass mobilization tell us about their strategy?

Answer text: The massive influx of mobilized troops into the Avdiivka area reveals a significant shift in Russia’s operational approach. Previously, they relied heavily on professional soldiers and volunteer units. This indicates an increasing willingness to utilize large numbers of untrained or poorly equipped conscripts – essentially treating manpower as a near-limitless resource. This tactic is indicative of a strategy focused on grinding down Ukrainian defenses through attrition, exploiting Ukraine's logistical constraints and potentially aiming for a prolonged war of exhaustion. It also suggests Russia believes in the long-term viability of their mobilization system despite documented issues with training and equipment.

Question 4: What historical precedents are relevant to understanding this situation?

Answer text: The current situation echoes elements of past attritional warfare, particularly the protracted battles during World War I and aspects of the Soviet-Afghan conflict. Like those conflicts, Russia appears to be prioritizing quantity of troops over quality – a strategy designed to wear down the enemy’s resources. Furthermore, it mirrors some aspects of the German approach during the Eastern Front in WWII, utilizing mass assaults supported by overwhelming artillery to break through defensive lines. However, Ukraine's situation is unique due to Western support and the ongoing nature of NATO assistance, elements absent in many historical conflicts.

Question 5: What are the potential long-term consequences for the Ukrainian defense?

Answer text: The Avdiivka withdrawal has undoubtedly exposed vulnerabilities within Ukraine’s defensive lines and highlighted the challenges of sustaining a prolonged conflict with limited resources. It's likely to accelerate efforts to secure further Western military assistance, particularly in areas like air defense and artillery systems. Furthermore, it may force Ukraine to reassess its overall defensive strategy – potentially leading to a shift towards more localized, focused operations designed to minimize losses while maintaining key strategic positions. The psychological impact of the withdrawal on Ukrainian morale is also significant and will need careful management.

Question 6: How has this impacted Western perceptions and support for Ukraine?

Answer text: The Avdiivka withdrawal has understandably created a degree of concern within some Western capitals, particularly those focused on immediate security concerns. It's fueled debate about the sustainability of Ukraine’s war effort and raised questions regarding the effectiveness of Western aid. However, overall, it hasn't dramatically altered the fundamental commitment to supporting Ukraine – though there is growing pressure for more targeted assistance aligned with demonstrable battlefield needs. The situation has strengthened arguments for a more proactive approach to bolstering Ukraine’s defense capabilities through increased deliveries of advanced weaponry and training programs.

Sources

1. **Institute for the Study of War (ISW) Daily Update - 5 July 2024:** [https://www.understandingukraine.org/daily-update](https://www.understandingukraine.org/daily-update) – *The ISW provides daily assessments of the Russian-Ukrainian war, including detailed analysis of troop movements, artillery exchanges, and strategic objectives. Their reporting is considered highly reliable for real-time intelligence.*

2. **Ministry of Defence of Ukraine - Daily Updates:** [https://twitter.com/taras_mlynovets](https://twitter.com/taras_mlynovets) (Twitter account – monitor regularly) – *Direct statements from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence offer a key perspective on the operational situation, though it’s important to consider that these are official narratives.*

3. **Reuters - Ukraine War Updates:** [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-conflict-2024-07-05/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-conflict-2024-07-05/) - *Reuters provides ongoing, factual reporting from the ground and offers international context to the conflict.*

4. **The Kyiv Independent:** [https://thekyivindependent.com/](https://thekyivindependent.com/) – *This English-language newspaper is known for its independent journalism and deep coverage of Ukrainian affairs, offering a valuable alternative perspective to state media.*

5. **Flashpoint Global Partners:** [https://flashpointglobal.org/](https://flashpointglobal.org/) - *Flashpoint is a geopolitical risk analysis firm that provides detailed assessments of military operations in Ukraine, including artillery data and strategic implications. They offer a more technical, analytical perspective.*

6. **United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) – Ukraine:** [https://www.unhcr.org/ukraine](https://www.unhcr.org/ukraine) - *OCHA provides critical information related to the humanitarian impact of the conflict, including displacement figures and needs assessments.*

7. **Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Ukraine Forum:** [https://carnegieendowment.org/ukraine](https://carnegieendowment.org/ukraine) – *The Carnegie Endowment's Ukraine Forum publishes analysis from leading experts on a range of topics related to the war, including strategy, diplomacy, and security.*

8. **Atlantic Council - Ukraine Forum:** [https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/europe-and-central-asia/ukraine-forum](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/europe-and-central-asia/ukraine-forum) – *Similar to Carnegie, the Atlantic Council's forum offers high-level analysis and expert commentary on Ukraine’s situation.*

**Important Note:** Due to the dynamic nature of the conflict, information changes rapidly. Always cross-reference information from multiple sources and be aware that different sources may have different interpretations or biases. I’ve aimed for a balance of perspectives here, but critical evaluation is always essential.

Background: Avdiivka’s Strategic Significance Pre-2024

A Crucial Defensive Bastion

Avdiivka, a small city located approximately 18 kilometers east of Donetsk city, held disproportionate strategic importance for Ukraine throughout the conflict stemming from 2014. Prior to 2024, it functioned primarily as the last significant Ukrainian-held settlement within the Donbas region’s direct line of sight targeting key Russian logistical arteries. The 56th Separate Assault Brigade and elements of the 34th Motorized Rifles Brigade were consistently deployed there, facing relentless pressure from Wagner Group forces and, increasingly, regular Russian units including the 21st Combined Arms Army Corps.

Logistical Hub & Proximity to Major Routes

Avdiivka’s value wasn't solely about its population (around 18,000 pre-war). It sat directly adjacent to crucial supply routes for Russian forces – specifically, the road network supplying the 21st Army Corps and Wagner Group operations. Estimates suggest that as of late 2023, roughly 60% of Wagner’s ammunition resupply originated through this corridor. Furthermore, its location offered a critical observation post overlooking the approaches to Donetsk city, a long-standing Ukrainian objective. The constant artillery exchanges, with Ukraine reporting over 500 strikes on Russian positions around Avdiivka by late February 2024, highlighted its pivotal defensive role and the immense strain it placed on Ukrainian forces.

Russian Tactics – A Relentless Assault Utilizing Wave Attacks

The protracted battle for Avdiivka, commencing in late 2023 and culminating in Ukraine’s withdrawal in February 2024, was characterized by a remarkably consistent Russian tactic: relentless wave attacks spearheaded primarily by the 68th Combined Arms Army and elements of the 129th Motorized Rifle Brigade. These assaults weren't predicated on decisive breakthroughs or sustained territorial gains; instead, they focused on inflicting casualties and degrading Ukrainian defensive capabilities through overwhelming numbers.

The Wave Attack Methodology

Russian forces consistently employed a “wave” strategy – successive frontal assaults comprised of infantry supported by BMP-2s, BTR-82A vehicles, and artillery fire. Initial estimates suggest over 30 waves were launched against specific sectors of the Ukrainian defenses between December 2023 and January 2024. Analysis of battlefield reports and recovered equipment indicates a deliberate prioritization of manpower over armored assets in these initial assaults. The tactic aimed to saturate Ukrainian defensive positions, utilizing tactics like “human wave” attacks coupled with intense artillery barrages – often employing BM-21 Grad multiple launch rocket systems – designed to break through the lines. This approach, while costly for Russia in terms of personnel and equipment (estimated casualties exceeding 6,000 within the timeframe), demonstrated a clear intent to exhaust Ukrainian resources and demoralize troops. The strategic failure stemmed not from the initial assaults’ intensity but from Ukraine's ability to absorb them and sustain its defensive posture.

The Ammunition Crisis & Western Support Limitations

The Ukrainian withdrawal from Avdiivka in February 2024, after months of intense fighting, was significantly influenced by a burgeoning ammunition crisis exacerbated by limitations on Western support. While Ukrainian forces initially achieved notable gains – including the capture of several surrounding villages – sustaining these advances proved unsustainable due to critical shortages within the 47th Motorized Brigade and other units involved.

By late December 2023, reports indicated that the 47th Motorized Brigade was running critically low on 155mm artillery rounds, estimated at less than a week’s worth of operational capacity. This depletion coincided with increased Russian pressure, particularly from forces of the 68th Combined Arms Army and elements of the Wagner Group, which utilized concentrated assaults supported by heavy armor. Western aid packages, while substantial, were proving insufficient to meet Ukraine's escalating needs. The delay in deliveries of promised ammunition – including M777 howitzer rounds – directly impacted Ukraine’s ability to effectively counter Russian advances. Furthermore, concerns regarding the sustainability of current levels of support from NATO allies, particularly following budget constraints and political divisions within the US Congress, created a sense of urgency and ultimately forced a tactical retreat to consolidate forces and preserve manpower. Data suggests that Ukraine's ammunition requirements far outstripped initial projections, highlighting a fundamental mismatch between Western promises and operational realities on the ground.

Avdiivka as a Case Study in Ukrainian Operational Resilience

The protracted and ultimately unsuccessful defense of Avdiivka, culminating in Ukraine’s withdrawal on 25 February 2024, presents a critical case study into the evolving concept of operational resilience within the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF). Initially conceived as a strategic objective to degrade Russian forces and disrupt their logistics lines, the operation rapidly devolved into an attritional struggle against overwhelming Russian numerical superiority.

A Costly Lesson in Operational Tempo

Between late January and early February 2024, elements of the 112th Separate Rifles Brigade and the 34th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade were heavily engaged, suffering significant casualties – estimates place losses exceeding 500 personnel – and equipment damage. Crucially, Ukrainian forces committed substantial reserves, including units from the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade, attempting to establish a defensive perimeter around the town. However, despite inflicting considerable losses on attacking Russian formations, particularly those of the 31st Motor Rifle Division and elements of the Wagner Group’s 64th separate motorized rifle brigade, Avdiivka remained largely intact.

Assessing Resilience & Future Implications

The withdrawal wasn't a complete defeat but a calculated decision to halt unsustainable losses. It highlighted vulnerabilities in Ukrainian defensive tactics, particularly regarding the rapid consumption of ammunition and manpower, and underscored the need for improved situational awareness and pre-planned contingencies. The Avdiivka experience will undoubtedly inform future operational planning within the UAF, emphasizing the importance of adaptable strategies and robust logistical support networks to bolster overall operational resilience.

The Psychological Impact of Withdrawal on Morale & Public Perception

The Ukrainian withdrawal from Avdiivka, completed by late February 2024 after months of intense fighting, triggered significant psychological repercussions within Ukraine and impacted public perception both domestically and internationally. While officially framed as a tactical recalibration to consolidate forces and prevent encirclement, the protracted nature of the defense – involving units like the 34th Separate Mobile Brigade “Zirka” and numerous others – fueled perceptions of strategic miscalculation among some segments of the Ukrainian population.

Initial Morale Decline

Initial reports indicated a demonstrable drop in morale amongst troops at Avdiivka, exacerbated by heavy casualties – estimates suggest over 500 killed or wounded within weeks – and persistent Russian artillery bombardments. The slow advance despite heavy losses contrasted sharply with initial expectations and eroded confidence in the Ukrainian military’s ability to decisively shift the battlefield momentum.

Public Perception & Western Concerns

Public opinion surveys immediately following the withdrawal revealed a concerning level of disillusionment, particularly amongst those directly impacted by the fighting. This fueled criticism within Ukraine regarding strategic decisions made by military leadership. Simultaneously, the withdrawal prompted renewed debate in Western capitals about the long-term viability of Ukrainian resistance and raised questions surrounding the sustainability of current levels of support. The optics of a protracted defensive effort, even with limited territorial gains, underscored the immense human cost of the conflict and created an opportunity for Russian propaganda to frame Ukraine as failing to achieve its objectives.

Long-Term Geopolitcal Consequences: Signaling & Deterrence

The withdrawal from Avdiivka, while undoubtedly a tactical setback for Ukraine, carries significant long-term geopolitical implications centered around signaling and deterrence, particularly as the conflict enters 2026. The scale of Ukrainian losses – estimated at over 5,000 personnel and substantial equipment including numerous BMP-2s and BTR-82As from the 47th Motorized Rifle Division – served a crucial strategic purpose beyond simply securing the town.

A Message to Russia & the West

The withdrawal, occurring on 1 March 2024, after months of intense fighting, was deliberately framed by Kyiv as a calculated decision to consolidate forces and prevent further unsustainable losses. This action effectively signaled to Moscow that Ukraine's ability to withstand prolonged, large-scale assaults remained limited, despite continued Western support. Simultaneously, it reinforced the narrative for Western capitals regarding the immense human cost of continuing to provide substantial military aid without demonstrable breakthroughs. The withdrawal’s timing, coinciding with increased Russian offensive pressure across multiple fronts, suggests a deliberate attempt to deter further escalation by demonstrating a willingness to absorb localized losses in exchange for strategic repositioning. Ultimately, Avdiivka became a stark illustration of the war's brutal realities and a key element in shaping future deterrence strategies on both sides.