>>50050
If they attack at Bakhmut, that red line along the Bakhmutka river is probably realistic, if they can achieve any result, then that is.
I concur, if they launch an offensive, it'll be elsewhere. Somewhere which is more strategically rewarding.
But, there are several factors to calculate with. Liek.
Ukrainian side often declared their goal is to gain back every cm2, and no talks about peace until Russia holds anything.
We can just guess Moscow's goals. Maybe just the oblasts that "joined" to them. Maybe everything east from the Dnepr. Maybe the southern shores of Ukraine. Maybe whole Ukraine. Maybe a disarmed Ukraine... Probably whatever they can achieve and rationalize later that was their original goal.
What I hear/read/see is that both sides prepares for long conflict. So one roll of the dice won't change much.
Another factor is what the NATO/US decision makers want out of it. What the western "advisors" will tell to Zelensky and the military leadership.
And another what the generals in the AFU high command want.
We don't know what they really think about Bakhmut itself. I heard both that it's not important, and startegically important as well.

For me even if Ukrainians can't push the Russian forces out, attacking from the area of Zaporozhia towards the south would make the most sense. They could at least tear Russian supply lines apart, who then would have to rely on the bridge (plus airplanes and ships) to run supplies to Crimea and Kherson. Which would be quite awkward.