- James Landall
- Diplomatic Affairs Editor – Kyiv
Bakhmut suffered extensive destruction during the Russian attempt to seize it
Bakhmut turned into rubble.
This small industrial city in eastern Ukraine has been bombed by Russia for more than seven months.
According to the city’s deputy mayor, Oleksandr Marchenko, several thousand civilians are still living in underground bunkers without water, gas or electricity.
“The city was almost destroyed,” Marchenko told the BBC, adding that “not a single building was left unharmed in this war.”
But why are Russia and Ukraine fighting so hard in this city? And why did the two sides sacrifice the lives of many soldiers to attack or defend Bakhmut in a battle that lasted longer than any other battle during this war?
Military experts say that Bakhmut’s strategic value is small. The city is not a transportation hub and is not highly populated.
Before the invasion, approximately 70,000 people lived there.
The city was known for its salt and gypsum mines and large wine-producing factories. It is not of geographical significance. One Western official described it as “a small tactical event on a 1,200-kilometre front line.”
Despite this, Russia is investing huge military resources to capture the city. Western officials estimate that between 20-30 thousand Russian forces have been killed or wounded so far in and around Bakhmut.
The Kremlin needs a victory, albeit a symbolic one. It has been a long time since Russia captured such cities as Severodonetsk and Lysischansk. Since that summer, their fielding gains have been slow and incremental.
Russia needs success in promoting it to the supporters of the Kremlin inside Russia. “They are fighting for a political mission, not just a military one. The Russians continue to sacrifice thousands of lives to achieve their political goals,” Serhiy Kozan, head of Ukraine’s Security and Cooperation Service, told the BBC.
And the Russian leaders want to seize Bakhmut for military reasons as well, as they hope that the city will be a launching pad for more field gains. As the British Ministry of Defense noted in December, capturing the city “could enable Russia to threaten larger areas such as Kramatorsk and Sloviansk”.
There is also a connection with the “Wagner” group, which was involved in the attack on Bakhmut.
Its commander, Yevgeny Prigozhin, staked his reputation and his private army on the capture of Bakhmut. He hoped to ensure that his fighters could do better than the regular Russian army. He recruited thousands of convicts and threw droves of them in front of the Ukrainian defenses, many of them to their death.
If he cannot succeed here, his political influence in Moscow will diminish. Prigozhin has clashed with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and criticized his tactics, and now complains that he does not have enough ammunition.
Kozan said that there is a political struggle between the two men in the Kremlin, “and the location of this conflict is in Bakhmut and its surroundings.”
image copyright Getty Images
Ukraine suffered great losses in the battle for the defense of Bakhmut
Why is Ukraine so fiercely defending Bakhmut, and losing thousands of its own troops in doing so?
The main strategic goal, says one Western official, is to use the battle to weaken the Russian army: “Because of the Russian tactics, it gives Bakhmut a unique opportunity to kill many Russians.”
According to estimates by NATO sources, five Russian soldiers die for every one Ukrainian soldier in Bakhmut. Ukraine’s National Security Secretary Oleksiy Danilov says the rate is even higher, at seven to one.
Ukraine, like Russia, attaches political importance to Bakhmut. The Ukrainian president made the city a symbol of resistance. He described it during his visit to Washington in December as “a fortress of our morale” and awarded the flag of Bakhmut to the US Congress.
He said, “The battle for Bakhmut will change the direction of our war for independence and freedom.”
And what if Bakhmut fell? The Russians may declare victory, which is rare good news to boost morale.
Ukraine will suffer a political and moral defeat. Ukrainians will stop crying and calling for Bakhmut’s steadfastness on social media.
But few believe that this will have a significant military effect. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said, “The fall of Bakhmut does not necessarily mean that the Russians have changed the direction of the battle.”
Former Australian brigadier general and strategist Mick Ryan believes there will be no rapid Russian advance: “The Ukrainians… will withdraw into defensive zones in areas of Kramatorsk that they have prepared for eight years. The city is on higher ground and has more defense capabilities than Bakhmut. It is likely that any Progress in the Kramatorsk region is bloodier for the Russians compared to the campaign against Bakhmut.”
So what may be most important in the battle for Bakhmut, is the number of casualties suffered by each side, and what that might mean in the next phase of this war.
Will Russia suffer so many casualties that it will weaken its ability to launch more attacks? Or has Ukraine lost so many soldiers that its army will be less able to launch a counteroffensive later in the spring?