- By James Landale
- Diplomatic correspondent in Kyiv
56 minutes ago
Image source, Getty Images
picture description,
Russia practically destroyed Bakhmut in its attempts to capture the city
For more than seven long months, this small industrial town in eastern Ukraine has been bombed by Russian troops.
According to Deputy Mayor Oleksandr Marchenko, only a few thousand civilians are still living in underground makeshift shelters without water, gas or electricity. “The city is almost destroyed,” he told the BBC. “There is not a single building that has remained untouched in this war.”
So why are Russia and Ukraine fighting so hard over this pile of rubble? Why are both sides sacrificing the lives of so many soldiers to attack and defend this city in a battle that has lasted longer than any other in this war?
Military analysts say Bakhmut has little strategic value. It’s not a garrison town, or a transportation hub, or a major population center. About 70,000 people lived there before the invasion. The city was best known for its salt and gypsum mines and its vast winery. It has no particular geographical significance. As one Western official put it, Bakhmut is “a small tactical event on a 1,200-kilometer front line.”
And yet Russia is using enormous military resources to take the city. Western officials estimate that between 20,000 and 30,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or injured in and around Bakhmut so far.
Image source, Getty Images
picture description,
Ukraine has suffered many casualties in defense of Bakhmut – like the funeral of this soldier in Lviv
The Kremlin needs a victory, however symbolic. It’s been a long time since the summer when Russian troops occupied cities like Severodonetsk and Lysychansk. Since then, the territorial gains they have made have been gradual and slow.
So Russia needs a hit to sell it to pro-Kremlin propagandists at home. Serhii Kuzan, head of the Ukraine Security and Cooperation Center, told the BBC: “You are fighting for a political mission, not a purely military one. The Russians will continue to sacrifice thousands of lives to achieve their political goals.”
Russian commanders also want to take Bakhmut for military reasons. They hope it could be a springboard for them to gain more territory. As the British Ministry of Defense stated in Decemberthe city’s capture “would potentially allow Russia to threaten the larger urban areas of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk”.
And then there is the question of the Wagner mercenary group who are at the heart of the attack.
Their leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, risked his reputation and that of his private army to conquer Bakhmut. He hoped to show that his fighters could do better than the regular Russian army. He has recruited thousands of convicts and throws waves of them at the Ukrainian defenses, many to the death.
If he fails, his political influence in Moscow will dwindle. Mr Prigozhin is at odds with Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, criticizing his tactics and now complaining about not getting enough ammunition. Mr Kuzan said there was a political struggle between both men for influence in the Kremlin, “and the place for this struggle is in Bakhmut and the surrounding area”.
Image source, Getty Images
picture description,
Few civilians remain in Bakhmut, where about 70,000 people once lived
So why is Ukraine defending Bakhmut so stubbornly, losing thousands of troops in the process?
The main strategic purpose is to use the battle to weaken the Russian army. As one Western official put it bluntly, “Bakhmut gives Ukraine a unique opportunity to kill many Russians because of Russian tactics.”
These numbers are impossible to verify. Serhii Kuzan told the BBC: “As long as Bakhmut fulfills its function, which allows us to crush the enemy’s forces, destroying many more of them than the enemy inflicts casualties on us, until then, of course, we will continue to hold Bakhmut. By defending the city, Ukraine is also tying up Russian forces that could be deployed elsewhere on the front lines.
Like Russia, Ukraine has given Bakhmut political prominence. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made the city a symbol of resistance. When he visited Washington in December, he called it “the stronghold of our morality” and presented a Bakhmut flag to the US Congress. “Fighting for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and freedom,” he said.
Image source, Getty Images
picture description,
The battle for Bakhmut has been raging for months
So what if Bakhmut falls? Russia would claim victory, rare good news to boost morale. Ukraine would suffer a political, symbolic loss. The Ukrainians could no longer “Bachmut holds!” call. on social media. But few believe that there would be a huge military impact. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said, “The fall of Bakhmut does not necessarily mean that the Russians have changed the tide of this fight.”
Mick Ryan, a strategist and former Australian general, believes there would be no rapid Russian advance: “The Ukrainians … will withdraw to the defensive zones in the Kramatorsk areas, which they have had eight years to prepare. And the city sits higher, more defensible terrain than Bakhmut. Any advance into the Kramatorsk region will likely be as bloody for the Russians as their campaign for Bakhmut.”
What is perhaps most important in the battle for Bakhmut is how many casualties each side suffered and what that could mean for the next phase of this war. Will Russia have suffered so many casualties that its ability to launch further offensives will be weakened? Or will Ukraine have lost so many soldiers that its army would be less able to launch a counter-offensive later in the spring?