top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureThe San Juan Daily Star

Why Bakhmut? It’s a question as old as war.


Civilians trying to find a safe path make their way past a gazebo, center left, in this aerial drone image of Bakhmut, in eastern Ukraine, on Friday, May 19, 2023. (Tyler Hicks/The New York Times)

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff


Just weeks before President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine visited the city of Bakhmut in December, a soldier with the military call sign “Bear” stared out from the window of a ruined sixth-floor apartment overlooking the city’s eastern reaches. I quietly stood next to him. The battle below played out in muted ferocity.


Rockets lit the sky. A tank burned in the distance. To the south, Russian incendiary munitions floated downward, the thin arc of white flames igniting small fires on the ground but little else. There was nothing left to burn, the area already shelled to what seemed like oblivion.


“Bakhmut,” I wrote in my journal, “is in rough shape.”


That was one long night of hundreds, as Bakhmut became the focal point of some of the fiercest fighting of the war — the object of acute desire for Russia and of a tenacious defense by Ukraine. And now, the city of Bakhmut appears to have fallen to the Russians after 10 months, leaving thousands of soldiers wounded or killed, and a lingering question: How did a nondescript city the world had never heard of become the place where both sides decided to fight to the end, no matter the cost?


“Seems all the vultures are here,” one soldier messaged me as throngs of journalists showed up when the city seemed on the brink of falling in March. “Where were you before it got this dire?”


A war’s trajectory is unknowable. Combatants, political winds and military strategy have an equal say in the battles fought and the violence that follows. Bakhmut, a former Cossack outpost that was a salt-mining town at the war’s outset, happened to be where two armies collided. Pride, defiance and sheer stubbornness quickly gave the city outsize importance.


Fallujah, in Iraq, was unknown to much of the world until the United States tried to stamp out a growing insurgency in 2004. There were two separate battles for the city, one lasting three weeks, the second six. They were intense but much smaller in scale than Bakhmut’s destruction and loss.


Gettysburg was a rolling landscape of hills and fields typical of southern Pennsylvania, but it happened to be where three days of futile fighting dashed Robert E. Lee’s prospects of turning the Civil War in his favor. Iwo Jima was no more than a scab of an island in the Pacific, but the U.S. needed it for long-range bombers, and the struggle to control it became one of World War II’s most grueling battles.


But whether it be Bakhmut or Iwo Jima or Fallujah, the end of the battle, no matter the stakes or victor, is always the same: unfathomable loss, and a reckoning with what comes next. How do you remember the dead, and prepare for what you fear will be the calculated indifference of your leaders, who are plotting their next campaigns, with battles that might lead to your own demise?


“‘The enemy,’” said Joseph Heller’s character Yossarian, in his World War II novel “Catch-22,” “is anybody who’s going to get you killed, no matter which side he’s on.”


By Monday morning, Ukrainian officials were talking about controlling the “outskirts” of Bakhmut and preparing operations on the flanks, a subtle indication that the battle within the city had come to an end. Amid the rubble, the prewar population of about 70,000 has dwindled to a few thousand or less.


The Russian capture of Bakhmut at one point seemed unlikely. The Ukrainian army had pushed the Russians from around Kharkiv last September. In November, the port city of Kherson was liberated. Ukraine was winning. There was hope among some in Bakhmut that Kyiv’s troops would keep advancing, turning the tide once and for all.


But despite their defeats elsewhere, Moscow’s troops along with the Wagner mercenary forces, the Kremlin-backed group that was leading the assault on Bakhmut, never stopped attacking the city.


President Vladimir Putin of Russia had made it clear his forces were going to capture Bakhmut, and then take aim at the entirety of the mineral-rich Donbas region in which it resides. There was no winter lull as the ground hardened and the metal breaches of howitzers and Kalashnikovs became painful to touch with fingers numbed from the cold. Spring just brought more destruction in fierce and bloody street-to-street fighting.


Military analysts, Western officials and the media argued about the “strategic significance” of Bakhmut for months, as if some military-style jargon might make it easier to stomach the loss of an entire city to an invading army. Russians could use their resources better, analysts said. Ukraine should retreat to better ground and continue their offensive elsewhere, they added.


Zelenskyy turned Bakhmut into the war’s official focal point when he visited in December, appearing alongside his war-weary soldiers in what looked like a vacant factory near the front. The speed bump of a city, formerly named Artemivsk, was in the spotlight.


Bakhmut, with its once neatly trimmed walking paths and a quaint and well-known winery, was suddenly strategically significant, whether the generals and analysts agreed or not.


Zelenskyy’s visit was all the media and the Ukrainian people needed. “Bakhmut Holds” became a rallying cry. The war had another set-piece battle, one that felt eerily similar to the siege of Mariupol and the fighting in Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk months before it: outnumbered defenders, fighting off a much larger army.


We “are in full fire encirclement,” said one soldier fighting in Bakhmut toward the battle’s end, before asking if the Times would get the proper information to the public if he was abandoned there.


Opposite Zelenskyy was Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of Wagner. The once secretive tycoon started appearing in videos on the Bakhmut front. In the footage, Prigozhin is seen rallying his fighters and egging on Zelenskyy as he adjusts his body armor. In a video posted in March, Prigozhin asked the Ukrainian president to keep sending “battle-ready units” so his Wagner troops could kill them.


He also sparred with the Russian military leadership, castigating them and mocking them, adding a larger-than-life character to the Bakhmut narrative.


It was a camera-ready matchup heightened by the grisly images also coming from the front.


Videos posted from the battlefield showed a shell-scarred landscape dotted with shattered trees. Soldiers fought from muddy trenches in knee-high water. Trench foot was rampant during the winter.


Zelenskyy’s visit had made it clear: His forces would fight until the end. Bakhmut would join the list of cities where many soldiers died in exchange for only a few miles of ravaged land.


Those soldiers who live will have the rest of their lives to ponder if it was worth it. And those who died will be remembered as the fallen heroes of the battle for Bakhmut, the ranks that met their end in a city many people had never heard of a year ago.


As I stood by the shattered window that frigid night in December, I remember thinking that despite the crescendo of artillery and the chatter of gunfire, the battle for Bakhmut felt far away. Two days later, a shell crashed into the empty apartment we had been standing in.


Now the Russians patrol the city. The war goes on. It will inch toward new places on the map, not yet destroyed by monthslong artillery battles, where new slogans might emerge, and where the “strategic significance” remains in question, as the world awaits another bloody finale.

16 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page