War in Ukraine: What is the strategic importance of Bakhmut for it to become the longest and fiercest battle in the conflict with Russia?

Bakhmut lies in ruins.

For more than seven long months, this small industrial town in eastern Ukraine has been heavily attacked by Russian troops.

According to his deputy mayor Alexander Marchenko, only a few thousand civilians remained in underground shelters without water, gas and electricity. “The city is almost destroyed,” he told the BBC. “Not a single building survived this war.”

So why are Russia and Ukraine fighting so hard for this pile of rubble? Why both sides sacrificing the lives of so many soldiers attack and defend this city in a battle that has lasted longer than any other in this war?

Military analysts say Bakhmut is of little strategic importance. There is no military base, no communication center, no important settlement in the city.

Prior to the invasion, the municipality had a population of approximately 70,000. The city was best known for its salt and plaster mines and a huge wine cellar. It has no special geographical significance.

As one Western official noted, Bakhmut is “a small tactical battle on a 1,200-kilometer front line.”

Yet Russia is deploying massive military resources to take the city. Western officials believe that 20,000 to 30,000 Russian soldiers died or were injured in Bakhmut and its environs.

The Kremlin needs a victory, albeit a symbolic one. Much time has passed since that summer, when Russian troops took such cities as Severodonetsk and Lisichansk. Since then, the territorial conquests they have achieved have been gradual and slow.

Symbolic meaning

Thus, Russia needs a victory to sell to propagandists Kremlin at home. Sergiy Kuzan, president of the Ukrainian Center for Cooperation and Security, assured the BBC that “they are fighting a political battle, not a purely military one. The Russians will continue to sacrifice thousands of lives to achieve their political goals.”

The Russian command also wants to take Bakhmut for military reasons. They hope that this will serve as a springboard for further territorial gains. As the British Ministry of Defense noted in December, the capture of the city “may allow Russia to threaten the larger urban areas of Kramatorsk and Slavyansk.”

And then there’s the question of the band Wagner mercenaries who bear the brunt of the attack.

Their leader Yevgeny Prigozhin staked his reputation and the reputation of his private army on the capture of Bakhmut. He hoped to show that his fighters could do better than the regular Russian army. He has recruited thousands of convicts and is sending them in waves against Ukrainian defenses, many to their deaths.

If he does not win at Bakhmut, his political influence in Moscow will decrease. Prigozhin is at odds with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, whom he criticizes for tactics and now reproaches for lack of ammunition. Yes, says Sergey Kuzan, political struggle between two men for influence in the Kremlin, “and this fight is going on in and around Bakhmut.”

So why is Ukraine so stubbornly defending Bakhmut, while losing thousands of soldiers?

heavy losses

Their main strategic goal is to use this battle to weaken the Russian army. One Western official put it bluntly: “Bakhmut, thanks to Russian tactics, gives Ukraine a unique opportunity to kill many Russians.“.

NATO sources estimate that for every Ukrainian in Bakhmut, five Russians die. Ukraine’s National Security Minister Oleksiy Danilov says the ratio is even higher, at seven to one.

These figures cannot be verified. Sergei Kuzan assured the BBC that “as long as Bakhmut does his part, allowing us to overwhelm the enemy forces and proportionally destroy them much more than the enemy is inflicting on us, in the meantime we will of course continue to hold Bakhmut. By protecting the city, Ukraine also deters Russian forces that might otherwise be deployed elsewhere.

Like Russia, Ukraine also attaches political importance to Bakhmut. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has made the city an emblem of resistance. When he visited Washington in December, he called it “strength of our spiritand delivered the Bahmut flag to the US Congress. “The fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and freedom,” he said at the time.

So what will happen if Bakhmut falls? Russia will claim victory, which is rare morale-boosting good news. Ukraine will suffer political and symbolic loss. Ukrainians will no longer be able to shout “Baymut, resist!” in social networks. But few believe that this will have serious military consequences. As US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated, “the fall of Bakhmut does not necessarily mean that the Russians turned the tide of this war.”

Mick Ryan, an Australian strategist and former general, believes that in this case there will be no rapid Russian offensive: “The Ukrainians will withdraw into defensive zones in the Kramatorsk region, which they have prepared over the past eight years. And this city is in higher and more easily defended ground that Bakhmut. Any offensive in the Kramatorsk area is likely to be as bloody for the Russians as their march on Bakhmut.

So perhaps the most important thing about the Battle of Bakhmut is how many casualties each side suffered and what that could mean for the next phase of the war. Has Russia suffered so many losses that its ability to launch new offensives has weakened? Or will Ukraine lose so many soldiers that its army will be less able to launch a counteroffensive later in the spring?

---

remember, that you can receive notifications from BBC Mundo. Download the new version of our app and activate them so you don’t miss out on our best content.