The Battle for Bakhmut

 

The battle for Bakhmut has lasted for about nine months. It is the bloodiest and most intense fight in Europe since WWII. Advances and retreats are measured in two to six kilometers increments.

Thousands of Russian and Ukrainian forces have been killed in this battle as Russian forces try to encircle the city, and Ukrainian forces try to prevent the taking of the city.

Once again, the following video shows the grunts in the field. I’m not interested in the policy wonk views in the West, nor the Kremlin’s perpetual aggrievement of losing the old Soviet Empire. This fight has become like WWI trench warfare with newer and more deadly weapons.

My opinion is that this war is not going to end anytime soon. Regardless of the past history between Russia and Ukraine, it should be obvious that Ukrainians are fighting for hearth and home.

.

Published in Military
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 378 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Zafar (View Comment):

    I thought it was a rail/highway hub? And because the Russian Army moves supplies along rail lines by preference, it advances most easily (with least difficulty?) along rail lines (as opposed to cross country). [Ditto highways.] Anybody?

    See comment #354.

    • #361
  2. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    The significance of Bakhmut is that the Russians have lost an enormous number of soldiers over the past year trying to capture it and now that they are very close to holding all of Bakhmut, they are likely to be encircled and destroyed.

    Its too soon to tell whether its ‘rope-a-dope’ (and if so, on which side?  Russia has lost more, but they can arguably afford to lose more).

    • #362
  3. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    … Russia has lost more …

    According to …?

    • #363
  4. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    The Wagner Group is holding the inner city, from ISW, May 21:

    Wagner Group mercenaries likely secured the western administrative borders of Bakhmut City while Ukrainian forces are continuing to prioritize counterattacks on Bakhmut’s outskirts. Ukrainian military officials reported that Ukrainian forces control an “insignificant” part of southwestern Bakhmut City around the T0504 highway — a tacit acknowledgement that Russian forces have secured the rest of western and northwestern Bakhmut, if not all of it.

    These officials’ statements indicate that Ukrainian forces withdrew from the remaining areas in Bakhmut except those adjacent to the two highways into the city. Geolocated footage published on May 21 showed Wagner forces raising Russian and Wagner flags over a residential building in westernmost Bakhmut. The Wagner Group’s likely capture of the last remaining small area of western Bakhmut does not impact ongoing Ukrainian counterattacks north or south of Bakhmut, nor does it impact Ukrainian control over the ground lines of communications (GLOCs) around Bakhmut that exhausted Wagner forces would need to reach in order to conduct further offensive operations.

    Russian forces will likely need additional reinforcements to hold Bakhmut City and its flanks at the expense of operations in other directions. ISW has observed artillery units of the 132nd Separate Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade (which was previously observed in the Avdiivka area) operating in the Bakhmut direction.

    • #364
  5. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Zafar (View Comment):

    I thought it was a rail/highway hub? And because the Russian Army moves supplies along rail lines by preference, it advances most easily (with least difficulty?) along rail lines (as opposed to cross country). [Ditto highways.] Anybody?

    Its true about Russia and rail lines, but I’m not sure how useful it would be for them in this context (my understanding is that Bakhmut is oriented towards connecting east and west Ukraine, which is quite different from rail lines originating from Russia and crossing thru strongly held territory on the way to the front lines).

    In any event, I think we’ll find out just how important-or not-Bakhmut is during the Summer fighting season.

    • #365
  6. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    … Russia has lost more …

    According to …?

    Most sources, backed up by common sense; invaders are at a natural disadvantage against entrenched positions.  I also suspect if Russia were able to pull off this type of operation with fewer losses than the defenders, they wouldn’t have had as much trouble as they’ve been having, and if Ukraine were performing that badly, they probably couldn’t have lasted this long (military equipment is worthless if there aren’t enough people who can use it).  But, I cannot offer absolute proof that this is the case.

    • #366
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    I thought it was a rail/highway hub? And because the Russian Army moves supplies along rail lines by preference, it advances most easily (with least difficulty?) along rail lines (as opposed to cross country). [Ditto highways.] Anybody?

    Its true about Russia and rail lines, but I’m not sure how useful it would be for them in this context (my understanding is that Bakhmut is oriented towards connecting east and west Ukraine, which is quite different from rail lines originating from Russia and crossing thru strongly held territory on the way to the front lines).

    In any event, I think we’ll find out just how important-or not-Bakhmut is during the Summer fighting season.

    Here’s a map of the rail system there:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/DZD.svg

    Bakhmut (Artemosk) has two stations (Artemosk 1 and Artemosk II) and seems to be one of the junctions between North-South [important for moving troops down to strengthen the land bridge) and East-West [moving them towards to the rest of Ukraine].  

    Not the ONLY such junction, but one such.

    • #367
  8. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    … Russia has lost more …

    According to …?

    Most sources, …

    I’m sure that’s true. 

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    … backed up by common sense; invaders are at a natural disadvantage against entrenched positions

    There’s no denying the intuitive appeal of this claim. Here’s some “it ain’t necessarily so” type material for your consideration, however:

    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/03/ukraine-is-lying-about-casualty-ratios-to-justify-holding-of-bakhmut.html

    • #368
  9. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    … Russia has lost more …

    According to …?

    Most sources, …

    I’m sure that’s true.

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    … backed up by common sense; invaders are at a natural disadvantage against entrenched positions

    There’s no denying the intuitive appeal of this claim. Here’s some “it ain’t necessarily so” type material for your consideration, however:

    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/03/ukraine-is-lying-about-casualty-ratios-to-justify-holding-of-bakhmut.html

    I strongly doubt the numbers are 7:1 in any sides favor, but I think if the casualty numbers were as optimistic for Russia as they claim, Russia would not need to risk the upheaval of their recent conscription efforts, and if the losses for Ukraine were as lopsided as they believe plausible, they would not be able to hold such a long defensive line, much less regain the amount of territory they did several months ago.  Their analysis simply doesn’t reflect any policies or facts on the ground discernible from afar (nor does a 7:1 ratio in favor of Ukraine).  As for the 10:1 artillery claim, factors such as inferior product, poor upkeep through corruption or negligence, lousy intelligence, and misguided allocation would cut into that, assuming the numbers are even accurate.

    Much of the propaganda can be reasonably filtered simply by looking at the information conceded by both sides (which usually, but not always,  takes place well after the fact), which for a long time hasn’t presented anything other than a virtual stalemate with periods of momentum for each side.

    • #369
  10. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    One wonder’s how much they have really accomplished here other than rendering the Wagner group combat ineffective. …

    Well, the Russians will now control a strategically important transportation/supply/logistics hub, from which they’ll be able to stage their next push westward. What used to be a major obstacle is now a major asset.

    Wagner’s Prighozhin announced the other day that they’ll be transferring control of the city to the regular Russian Army by June 5, at which point the Wagnerites will get some rest, recharge their batteries, replenish their ranks, train up new recruits, get resupplied, and get ready for their next assignment.

    Bakhmut wasn’t a particular strategic position …

    Au contraire. Its strategic importance was widely recognized by all … until recently. To wit:

    “Conquering Bakhmut as a strategically important regional transport and logistics center would be extremely welcome for Russian forces, although this advantage depends on how much of the city’s infrastructure is usable. The Kharkiv-Rostov and Donetsk-Kiev highways pass through Bakhmut, which are of great strategic importance for any army that controls them. More importantly, the capture of the city by Russian troops would represent a springboard for further advances and the conquest of two larger cities in the Donetsk region that have been targeted by pro-Russian separatists since 2014: Kramatorsk and Slovyansk.

    In the case of the capture of Bakhmut, both would be within easy range of Russian artillery, and at the same time Ukrainian logistics routes would be cut off. The nearby town of Chasiv Yar, west of Bakhmut in the district of the same name, would be the next to be hit by Russian forces, although it is on higher ground and Ukrainian forces are believed to have built defensive fortifications nearby. In any case, the Russians are forced to occupy Bakhmut, Kramatorsk and Slovyansk and other nearby towns and villages in order to occupy the entire territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic, which together with the Luhansk People’s Republic, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions, was annexed by the Russian Federation on September 30 last year.”

    When Zelensky spoke to the special joint session of Congress last December (exactly 5 months ago, as it happens), Bakhmut featured mighty prominently. He mentioned it 8 times, most notably in this passage:

    “Just like the Battle of Saratoga, the fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and for freedom.”

    At the end of his speech, he unfurled a Ukrainian flag signed by some of the troops he had visited in Bakhmut the previous day, and presented it to Speaker Pelosi and VP Harris.

    But now, of course, the narrative needs to change, in “Oceania was never important!” Orwellian fashion.

    Links:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/21052023-bakhmut-the-origin-and-development-of-a-strategically-important-city-analysis/

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/22/politics/zelensky-congress-address-transcript/index.html

    What measures do you think the U.S. and EU should take to help Ukraine reverse any losses in Bakhmut? 

    • #370
  11. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    Much of the propaganda can be reasonably filtered simply by looking at the information conceded by both sides (which usually, but not always,  takes place well after the fact), which for a long time hasn’t presented anything other than a virtual stalemate with periods of momentum for each side.

    Agree. This is a slow grind kind of war. Its current dynamics more closely resemble the beginning of a chess game (where much of the work is done by slow-moving pawns), rather than the middle. The end stage seems quite far away at the moment, unfortunately.

    • #371
  12. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    What measures do you think the U.S. and EU should take to help Ukraine reverse any losses in Bakhmut?

    Given that the U.S./NATO and Ukraine have determined that Bakhmut is of little to no strategic importance, I should think that they themselves would consider devoting even more Western treasure and Ukrainian blood to the task of retaking it to be an irresponsible as well as unconscionable folly.

    • #372
  13. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Zafar (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    I thought it was a rail/highway hub? And because the Russian Army moves supplies along rail lines by preference, it advances most easily (with least difficulty?) along rail lines (as opposed to cross country). [Ditto highways.] Anybody?

    Its true about Russia and rail lines, but I’m not sure how useful it would be for them in this context (my understanding is that Bakhmut is oriented towards connecting east and west Ukraine, which is quite different from rail lines originating from Russia and crossing thru strongly held territory on the way to the front lines).

    In any event, I think we’ll find out just how important-or not-Bakhmut is during the Summer fighting season.

    Here’s a map of the rail system there:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/DZD.svg

    Bakhmut (Artemosk) has two stations (Artemosk 1 and Artemosk II) and seems to be one of the junctions between North-South [important for moving troops down to strengthen the land bridge) and East-West [moving them towards to the rest of Ukraine].

    Not the ONLY such junction, but one such.

    I must admit my research is more confusing then ever on this, but it does line up.  It seems like from a strategic standpoint Bakhmut may be much more important for the Russians because of the North-South line then it is for moving from east to west.  It seems like Bakhmut helps anchor the Russian supply lines in the East.  It is difficult to say there is a lot of propaganda around this one.    

    • #373
  14. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    In any event, I think we’ll find out just how important-or not-Bakhmut is during the Summer fighting season.

    That is rapidly the point I think I am coming too.

    • #374
  15. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    I’ll have to do some more research on it. It doesn’t line up with most of my sources.

    Good. Please make sure you look at material that is more than 5 months old, i.e. before the narrative began to shift in response to the realization that the Ukrainians were not going to be able to hold onto Bakhmut for too much longer.

    You mean from the beginning of the campaign to take Bakhmut?

    Oh, you can go even further than that, if you like. All the way back to late 2014, when the Kiev versus Donbas separatists hostilities began. There’s a reason why Kiev, even back then, viewed Bakhmut as a mighty important city to fortify and such.

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    I agree that Zelensky’s position was that it was important; however, Zelensky’s position is that the loss of any part of Ukraine is important so I don’t set a lot of store on that.

    Not all parts are of “Saratoga”-level importance. Another nod to Orwell, if I may:

    All parts of Ukraine are equally important, but some parts of Ukraine are more equally important than others.

    A politician is still a politician, which means they lie with virtually every breath they take. Also the fact that a place is of limited strategic importance doesn’t mean it hasn’t acquired symbolic importance. I am sure, for example, this will be used to fuel the argument that Ukraine can’t win and that the tide is turning towards the Russians.

    Zelensky’s referring to Bakhmut as having “Saratoga”-like significance reflected the consensus (both internally and externally) as to its general importance, give or take. IOW, “Bakhmut = Saratoga” may have been an exaggeration on his part, but definitely not a lie. The “new, improved” narrative (along the lines of “Bakhmut, schbakhmut. Ain’t no BFD. Never was.”), however, IS an outright lie.

    My research so far hasn’t generated much illumination on the subject.  I think in the end I am going to have to agree with @lowtech-redneck we’ll know how strategically significant it is when the fighting season kicks off.  Here is what I have been able to piece together from various sources:

    1. Bakhmut was much more strategically significant early in the war because it is an important north-south hub, but its importance to Ukraine waned somewhat with the fall of the  cities north and south of Bakhmut.  It seems like this stabilizes the line of contact with Russia and probably helps their overall defensive position.  This makes it strategically significant for the Russian’s and a definite asset for the Ukrainians.
    2. The Russians maybe able to use it to bring up artillery to help with an offensive on cities to the West of Bakhmut, but western military analysts have suggested that Ukrainian can prevent that by taking up defensive positions west of Bakhmut, which they have been trying to convince the Ukrainians to do for a while.
    3. Ukrainian unwillingness to do this has been two fold: 
      1. First they seem more concerned than other western analysts that this might put other cities at risk.  They are closer to the ground so probably have a better feeling for this.
      2. More importantly though they see/saw Bakhmut as a opportunity to grind down Russian units especially Wagner.
    4. Prigozhin has been talking up the significance of Bakhmut for a long time and Russian MOD plays up or down its importance depending on if he is on the up or on the out.  This is almost comical and points to some real problems within the Russian military command, but it makes it inconclusive as to the actual significance of Bakhmut.  I suspect if Russian had been more successful elsewhere Bakhmut would have been downplayed because of Prigozhin’s involvement; however, that doesn’t mean it isn’t significant just that there are competing political narratives on the Russian side.  
    5. Regardless of the actual strategic importance, or lack of it, of Bakhmut it has become symbolically very important to both sides.  This means that whether or not the territory has strategic importance the outcome of the battle may have strategic importance from a morale standpoint.  

    That is about it.  I think this is a definite setback for Ukraine and a definite victory for Russia.  Ukraine did manage to damage Wagner to a point where it will be out of the fight for two months at least, that takes an important piece off the board for Russia if Ukraine can capitalize.  It will be interesting to see if the replacement forces for Wagner can hold onto the city.   I have seen analysis both ways on this one, I think the best analysis which is supported by the facts is that Bakhmut is defensible and it will be difficult for the Ukrainians to take it back.  

    • #375
  16. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    I can see why Bakhmut — the Russians actually still use the Stalinist name for the city — is important to Putin.

    After all, it’s one thing to illegally annex land you have occupied.   But annexing territories you don’t control is not just illegal but absurd.

    The conflicting messages [from the two militaries] may indicate that there are a number of things happening simultaneously and the battle for the city may not be over but rather entering a new phase, said Neil Melvin, the director of international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute, or RUSI, a London-based think tank.

    Wagner forces have concentrated in the central area of the city and ceded control of the flanks to reinforced troops from the regular Russian army in recent weeks, Melvin told NBC News, giving the mercenary fighters sufficient strength to seize basically all of the city.

    Meanwhile, Ukraine’s military appears to have withdrawn from its final positions in the center and concentrated on the flanks to the north and south, where it recently began pushing back Russian troops.

    It now seems to be aiming to surround the city, which could allow it to cut off and then destroy the Wagner forces in the center, Melvin added.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-claims-bakhmut-victory-ukraine-encircle-troops-wagner-putin-rcna85509

    Again, let’s remember this is all taking place deep inside territory Putin declared annexed last year.

    It reminds me of historical battles in which, say, the left flanks of both armies advanced, while the right flanks retreated, so that the two armies ended up pinheeling 180° and facing back the way they came.   Of course, here we see Wagner troops advancing and Russian troops retreating at the same time.

    The difference between the two is that the Russians became murderers and rapists by the way they carried on the war; while the Wagner troops were already murderers and rapists before they joined.

     

    • #376
  17. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Latest:

    • #377
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    What measures do you think the U.S. and EU should take to help Ukraine reverse any losses in Bakhmut?

    Given that the U.S./NATO and Ukraine have determined that Bakhmut is of little to no strategic importance, I should think that they themselves would consider devoting even more Western treasure and Ukrainian blood to the task of retaking it to be an irresponsible as well as unconscionable folly.

    I am not aware that the Ukrainians have determined that.  The Battle of Bakhmut is still going on, even though the Russians have occupied all the buildings.  

     

    • #378
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.