Jamie Detmer is Opinion Editor for POLITICO Europe.
French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte famously hated retreat. He noted that “however skillful a retreat may be, it always lowers the morale of the army.” “In battle the enemy loses practically as much as you do; while retreating, you lose, and he does not.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appears to be of the same opinion — over the course of the war he was reluctant to withdraw from the salt-mining town of Solidar earlier this year after a nearly six-month battle, and has now refused calls. By withdrawing from more fierce and prolonged fighting in neighboring Bakhmut.
There was some unease behind the scenes among the Ukrainians about continuing this nearly 9-month battle at Bakhmut. And earlier this week, the United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to reporters that “If the Ukrainians decided to change their position, I wouldn’t view it as an operational or strategic setback.”
Russia, meanwhile, was determined to score a victory at Bakhmut – located just 6 miles southwest of Solidar, which had been overrun two months earlier after Wagner’s Russian mercenary group sacrificed thousands of its untrained fighters there.
So, for Ukraine, is Bakhmut really worth it? Or is Zelensky like Napoleon in his refusal to withdraw from what appears to be a meat grinder in battle?
Considered the war’s longest and bloodiest battle so far, Bakhmut once again saw Wagner’s chief Yevgeny Prigozhin hurl his men—mostly conscripts from Russian prisons—into a whirl of reckless desertion that shocked observers and seasoned fighters on both sides. Andrei Medvedev, a Russian defector who recently fled to Norway, told reporters last month that the ex-convicts were being used as cannon fodder in Bakhmut. “In my platoon, only three men out of 30 survived. Then more prisoners were handed over to us, and many of them died too.” He said.
But the Ukrainians admit that they also suffered great losses in Bakhmut, which Russia is close to encircling. They claim that Russia lost seven soldiers for every Ukrainian life lost – though NATO military officials Put the ratio closer to 5 to 1.
Among those killed last week was Ukraine’s youngest battalion commander, 27-year-old Dmytro Kotciopailo — a war veteran who was awarded the Order of the Hero of Ukraine for bravery after joining the fight in the Donbass in 2014. One of his men, an American volunteer. james vasquez, chirp: “This is a devastating loss for all our men. A prolific young commander and respected, fearless battalion commander. Tomorrow we will go in with heavy hearts.”
Amid these losses, some analysts have questioned the tactical meaning of the fight over the now ruined city of 70,000, arguing that this has become more than a symbolic confrontation — Ukraine can withdraw without risking neighboring and more important towns. And some Western officials have been privately arguing that Zelensky might have been better off withdrawing from Bakhmut much sooner, in the same way Russia backed down in November—albeit, belatedly in their case.
But Zelensky this week defended his decision to keep the country’s forces fighting in the besieged city. In a TV title and Interview With CNN, the leader said, “This is tactical,” and emphasized that top Ukrainian generals were united behind his decision. Zelensky’s office also released a dossier statement He made it clear that he had the support of Valery Zaluzhny, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and Oleksandr Sersky, Commander of the Ukrainian Ground Forces, who He said The importance of controlling the city was “only increasing”.
According to Zelensky, if Russia finally succeeded in capturing Bakhmut, they could move on. “They can go to Kramatorsk, they can go to Sloviansk, and the way will be open for the Russians after Bakhmut to other cities of Ukraine, in the direction of Donetsk,” he said. “That’s why our men are standing there.”
He also included an additional reason for demanding his troops insistently, too: “Russia needs at least some victory—a small victory—even by destroying everything in Bakhmut, just killing every civilian there,” he said. Adding that if Russia was able to “put their little flag” on top of the city, it would help “mobilize their society in order to create this idea that they are a strong army”.
The decision to hold out as long as possible at Bakhmut is now gaining support from some senior US generals as well, who say Zelensky is right not to order a retreat. But their thinking differs from Zelensky’s general reasoning.
“I think, at the moment, using Bakhmut to allow the Russians to stir themselves up in him is the right course of action, given the extraordinary losses the Russians are taking,” retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus told Politico.
Petraeus added, “The Russian forces in Bakhmut are not just Wagner recruits and former criminals. There are also some of the best Russian troops. So, the Russians are committing an enormous amount of their resources into a very expensive offensive, the outcome of which remains uncertain.”
“Obviously it all hinges a bit on the assumption that the Russians don’t have inexhaustible manpower, and I think that’s the case now,” he said. “For example, they only have one division that hasn’t actually been committed to battle. That’s a very small reserve available to exploit any success on the battlefield.”
Petraeus sees no chance that Russia will be able to turn its significantly larger national population into its military advantage anytime soon. “The scheduled conscription course in Russia won’t start until April 1st. They seem to be doing what’s called ‘stealth conscription,’ kind of irregular local conscription again. But that wasn’t particularly successful in the past. So, the big difference in Kill ratios – whether 7-to-1 or 5-to-1 – mean there are serious battlefield ramifications for Russia.
Perhaps this meat grinder argument is one that Zelensky can’t articulate because, in a sense, Ukrainian lives are being “sacrificed”. Just this week, the Ukrainian leader said, “Of course, we have to think about the life of our army.” But this is the main reason, according to Petraeus, to continue fighting in Bakhmut – Ukraine’s losses are justified by the large losses suffered by the Russian army.
Those losses are particularly thanks to Russia’s infighting and lack of coordination, according to Mark Hertling, another retired U.S. general and former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe and the U.S. Seventh Army. According to Hertling, the Battle of Bakhmut demonstrates the lack of unity of command in the Russian forces, as many commanders seem to conflict with their goals all the time. “Soldiers who are thrown into a battle where there is no ‘unity of purpose’ suffer the most,” he said chirp.
“It is in Ukraine’s interest to take advantage of the defense [at Bakhmut] “It gives them to inflict as many casualties on Russia as possible, before Russia can use more forces in a major offensive this spring,” said US Marine Colonel John Barranco. “Bakhmut himself would not strategically change the course of the war dramatically for either side, but every piece of territory Ukraine would lose, would give Russia—a greater power—a chance to drill in and gain a defensive advantage” when the Ukrainians launch their summer offensive. , he added.
So, for the time being, Zelensky has no choice but to ask his powerful fighters to stay in Bakhmut. The cost is much higher for Russia.
“Subtly charming student. Pop culture junkie. Creator. Amateur music specialist. Beer fanatic.”