Why is Bakhmut so important to Russia and Ukraine?

The bloody battle for Bakhmut could be over in a matter of days after reports that Russian troops have almost surrounded Ukrainian forces in the city in the eastern region of Donetsk.

Ukrainian soldiers are “being pummelled on three sides” by Russian forces in “the longest and one of the bloodiest battles” since the beginning of the invasion, said The Guardian.

The battle for Bakhmut has raged for more than nine months. Despite reports that Ukraine is suffering “an estimated 100-200 casualties a day”, military leaders have insisted they will try to hold the city. But many fear the reasoning is now “more political and symbolic than practical”, said the paper. And a retreat now, after so many casualties in its defence, “would be a hard reality to face”.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

In an interview with CNN earlier this week, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy defended the decision to keep his forces in the city. “This is tactical for us,” said Zelenskyy, insisting Ukraine’s military chiefs supported the decision.

But on Wednesday, Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg warned that Bakhmut may fall “in the coming days”. He added that “this does not necessarily reflect any turning point of the war”.

If Russia does capture Bakhmut “it will represent the first of Moscow’s real gains in many months after a series of Russian defeats” in the summer and autumn of last year, said Vox. But while it would be a “symbolic win” for Russia, taking control of Bakhmut “may ultimately prove to be a hollow victory, at best”.

What did the papers say?

Russia is “determined to record a victory at Bakhmut”, said Politico, but questions remain over whether the defence of the city is “really worth it” for Ukraine. “Or is Zelenskyy being Napoleon-like in his refusal to disengage from what appears to be a meat-grinder of a battle?” asked the news site.

Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin has had to “once again hurl his men – mostly recruited from Russian jails – into the maelstrom with a reckless abandon that’s shocked observers and seasoned fighters on both sides”, said Politico. But Ukrainian forces acknowledge “they’ve also been suffering significant casualties at Bakhmut”. The Ukrainian military estimates Russia is losing “seven soldiers for each Ukrainian life lost – though NATO military officials put the ratio closer to 5-to-1”.

Amid the heavy losses some analysts “have questioned the tactical sense” in fighting over the “wrecked town”, which once had a population of roughly 70,000. They argue that “Ukraine could disengage without risk to neighbouring and more important towns”. And some Western officials have privately said they think Zelenskyy “may have been better advised to withdraw from Bakhmut much sooner, in much the same way Russia made a tactical retreat in November”, said the news site.

Ukraine’s “main strategic purpose” appears to be to “use the battle to weaken Russia’s army”, said the BBC. One Western official reportedly told the broadcaster: “Bakhmut, because of the Russian tactics, is giving Ukraine a unique opportunity to kill a lot of Russians.”

And Ukrainian officials have argued that pulling out of the city would not necessarily give their forces a “fresh advantage”, said the Financial Times. Mykola Bielieskov, an analyst at Ukraine’s National Institute for Strategic Studies, told the paper it was “quite difficult to conclude confidently whether attrition of Russian troops is better done using the current approach or might have been better had we left Bakhmut and shortened the front line”.

What next?

For Russian president Vladimir Putin, a victory at Bakhmut “would finally deliver some good news from the front”, said Firstpost, while for Kyiv, “the display of grit and defiance underscores the message that Ukraine is holding on after a year of brutal attacks, justifying continued support from its Western allies”.

The battle for Bakhmut has taken on almost “mythic importance” for both sides, said the news site, much like the siege of Mariupol. But for Ukraine, a tactical withdrawal to positions that are easier to defend could be the best option, according to Washington-based think-tank, The Institute for the Study of War.

“Ukrainian forces are unlikely to withdraw from Bakhmut all at once and may pursue a gradual fighting withdrawal to exhaust Russian forces through continued urban warfare,” the ISW said in an assessment published on Sunday.

A withdrawal from the city would not necessarily mean a rapid Russian advance into the area, said Mick Ryan, a strategist and former Australian general, speaking to the BBC.

“The Ukrainians… will be withdrawing into defensive zones in the Kramatorsk areas that they have had eight years to prepare. And the city sits on higher, more defensible ground than Bakhmut. Any advance on the Kramatorsk region is likely to be every bit as bloody for the Russians as its campaign for Bakhmut,” he said.

Perhaps “what matters most” in the battle for Bakhmut is “how many losses each side has incurred and what that might mean for the next phase in this war”, added the BBC. Under consideration is whether Russia will have “suffered so many casualties that its capacity to mount further offensives will have been weakened”. And for Ukraine, the question will be “will Ukraine have lost so many soldiers that its army would be less able to launch a counter-offensive later in the spring?”.