BATTLE FOR BAKHMUT

Recently, the main topic of international discussions in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war has been the battle for Bakhmut. The city is in eastern Ukraine and on the crossroads of the most important communications in the region. Therefore, control of this bridgehead is equally important for both the Ukrainian and Russian sides.

Strategic city

The ten-month battle for Bakhmut may go down in history as the longest battle of the war between Russia and Ukraine. Both the town and its surroundings became a trap, exhausting the warring sides and restraining their main forces.

Despite Kiev's claims that the AFU has killed thousands of Russian troops, mostly mercenaries from prisons recruited by the Wagner PMCs, the facts indicate that the Ukrainian side is also suffering significant losses. This can change the cost-benefit ratio in retaining the control over the city.

The advancing Russian forces are gradually approaching the city from three directions - north, south and east, leaving Ukrainian forces with only a narrow passageway for supply or retreat to the west.

In the current situation, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin even stated that Ukraine's retreat from Bakhmut would not be an "operational or strategic setback". NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said it would not be a "turning point" in the war. However, President Zelensky raised the stakes by ordering the AFU to reinforce positions in Bakhmut and warned that leaving Bakhmut would provide the Russian side an open road to the rest of the Donetsk Region, which Moscow is determined to seize.

Ukraine argues that Russia suffered heavier losses in its attempt to seize what Kiev calls nothing less than the Fortress of Bakhmut.

Even the Western media mention the discrepancies in the views of the US and Ukrainian military and political leadership regarding the prospects of defending Bakhmut. Citing senior White House officials, Politico reports that the AFU were losing a lot of men and ammunition in the battle for Bakhmut, which might prevent Ukraine from conducting a counteroffensive planned for spring.

According to The New York Times, there is also disagreement between Ukraine and the US on the issue of ending the war. "Zelenskyy’s insistence that all of Ukraine — including Crimea, which has been under Russian control since 2014 — be returned to Ukraine before any peace negotiations begin would only extend the war, US officials believe," Politico reported.

Yet, military experts believe that in the battle for Bakhmut, Ukraine is using the same tactics it employed last summer during the Russian offensive against Severodonetsk and Lisichansk, the last two major cities under Kiev's control in the Luhansk Region. Fighting fiercely on the outskirts of these towns, the Ukrainian army temporarily retreated and then inflicted heavy casualties on Russian forces and militia.

Taking advantage of the Russian forces' depletion and dispersal along the kilometre-long front line, the AFU launched a blitz offensive to recapture territories in north-eastern Ukraine and liberated the city of Kherson in the south.

Now the main question that politicians and analysts are interested in is whether the AFU can repeat the success of the summer-autumn campaign amid significant losses in manpower and equipment in autumn and winter. Perhaps these losses can explain a likely retreat of Ukrainian forces to a new defensive line.

Counting losses

A realistic estimate of casualties on both sides is difficult as fighting continues. According to US and European officials, more than 200,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or seriously wounded since last February, while Ukraine has lost about half that number.

NATO claims that one Ukrainian is killed or wounded for every five Russians. The head of Ukraine's National Security Council, Alexei Danilov, even estimated the ratio was "one to seven". Either way, this means that the Ukrainian side may have suffered tens of thousands of casualties defending the city. Although its better organised medical care means that this number is still proportionately less than Russian losses.

According to military experts, both sides now experience a shortage of artillery ammunition. While the Ukrainians hope to replenish their stockpiles from the depots of Western armies, the Russian armed forces allegedly use an arsenal in the far regions of Russia.

Following the prevention of Russian offensive in Bakhmut, one can clearly see increasing contradictions in the Russian leadership. The media is openly reporting about the conflict between Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner PMC, and the Russian Ministry of Defense. Although this conflict has been going on for more than a month, it intensified during the Bakhmut offensive. Apparently, the main reason for the escalation of tensions is the shortage of ammunition. However, judging by the intensity of fighting near Bakhmut, it seems the conflict does not have a tangible effect on military operations.

To encourage the troops, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has already visited the Ukrainian military's positions twice in a short period of time. In the confrontation, the Ukrainian side is trying new tactics to infiltrate the Russian territory. In early March, two explosions occurred near the Bryansk international airport, reportedly because of a shot-down drone. Russians responded with a massive artillery strike, using powerful weapons, including hypersonic Kinzhal missiles. Russia has so far not launched these missiles, which are capable of evading air defense systems. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian military said it had successfully shot down 34 cruise missiles and four Iranian-made Shahed drones. At the same time, they failed to intercept six Kinnzhal ballistic missiles and destroy older weapons - X-22 anti-ship missiles and S-300 surface-to-air missiles.

A spokesman for the Ukrainian Air Force said "this was a major attack, and the first time with so many different types of missiles. The attacks hit various cities across the country, from Kharkov in the north to Odessa in the south and Zhytomyr in the west. At the same time, power cuts were reported in several regions. In Kiev, emergency services were dispatched to the sites of explosions in the western and southern districts of the capital, where Mayor Vitaliy Klitschko said explosions also occurred.

As a result of the strike, Europe's largest nuclear power plant, Zaporozhye, was briefly disconnected from the power grid. Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), called for securing the plant, saying he was "surprised at the complacency" associated with successive strikes since the invasion began. "Each time we are rolling a dice. And if we allow this to continue time after time, then one day our luck will run out," Rafael Grossi said. A couple of weeks later, he met with Ukrainian President Zelensky in Zaporozhye and discussed with him the consequences of the missile strike as well as the overall security situation at the plant.

Ukrainians also tried to hit Russian targets. The most tangible ones were the strikes on targets in Jankoy and Tula. Both times Ukrainians reportedly used drones and specially planned operations.

Raising the stakes

The Russian Armed Forces did not reduce the intensity of attempts to occupy Bakhmut. According to the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu, the seizure of Bakhmut will allow the Russian army to advance deep into Ukraine. He underlined that Bakhmut was an important defense node of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Donbas.

Meanwhile, weapons continue to arrive in Ukraine from the West. Western experts claim that these weapons are intended for export and not equipped with the latest technical systems. According to Politico, the US is planning to transfer older Abrams tanks without secret armour using depleted uranium. Such tanks are in use in Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and Iraq. The same applies to the older Leopard 2A4 models handed over to Ukraine by Norway, Poland and a number of other countries.

But there are exceptions. Earlier in March, UK Deputy Defense Secretary Annabel Goldie reported on London's plans to transfer the Challenger tanks to Kiev, as well as new shells with  depleted uranium cores. British Foreign Secretary James Cleverley later confirmed this information. At the same time, he said that the supply of depleted uranium ammunition was not a nuclear escalation. Western experts are emphasizing that such an ammunition is an effective countermeasure against the heavy equipment and has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

In response to British intentions, President Vladimir Putin said that Russia was going to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. He agreed the plan with President of Belarus Aleksandr Lukashenko. The Kremlin claims that this will be done without violating the nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime, as Moscow will retain control over the nuclear charges.

Meanwhile, according to Josep Borrell, the EU Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, there is a possibility of imposing new sanctions both on Russia and Belarus if Moscow takes practical steps to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the country. "Belarus can still stop it, it's their choice. The EU is ready to respond with further sanctions," Borrell wrote on Twitter. According to him, the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus will mean "irresponsible escalation and a threat to European security".

However, the decision has been made and new sanctions are expected to be introduced soon. This means that Europe and the world can expect a new wave of escalation of international tensions.

The already feeble hopes for a quick peace are fading with each passing day, and attempts by individual politicians to bring the warring sides to the negotiating table seems nothing but a political rhetoric.

Under these circumstances, the battle for Bakhmut can be a starting point, a test showing where the pendulum of war will swing—towards war or peace.