The Battle of Bakhmut and Putin’s Gamble for Resurrection

It’s been almost impossible to miss news about the Battle of Bakhmut, a war-stricken city of a mere 71,000 people in Ukraine, at the onset of Russia’s invasion. This city has become a focal point of the war narrative, with the past month generating approximately one news story for every Bakhmut household. Understandably, as this city has been transformed into a meat grinder, a site of ongoing, gruesome conflict.

From the onset, Ukraine appeared willing to retain control of Bakhmut, despite a harrowing casualty ratio. Official numbers are yet to be confirmed, but the Kyiv government alleges that Russia suffered 70,000 casualties in this battle alone, while the U.S. estimates the figure to be around 100,000. Even Wagner, a mercenary group involved in the fight, claims to have lost 20,000 members.

The question that arises is why Russia is pouring immense resources into the battle for a city with a pre-war population on par with Tamarac, Florida, or Drummondville, Quebec, especially when, due to the conflict, the population is rapidly dwindling to almost nothing. The answer may be found in the notion of “gambling for resurrection,” and the precarious situation of President Vladimir Putin himself.

Gambling for Resurrection

The “gambling for resurrection” concept presents a striking analogy for the situation Russia finds itself in, with Putin in a particularly precarious position. Picture a man at a roulette table, betting his life savings on a single spin. This risky decision becomes rational when the man reveals he is indebted to the mob and faces death if he cannot pay back in full.

In this analogy, Putin is the gambler, the mob represents Russian domestic political forces, the owed debt symbolizes the adverse outcomes of the war, and the spinning roulette wheel is Bakhmut and other battlefields. Putin’s political future, much like the gambler’s life, hangs in the balance of these events, making these risky decisions potentially rational.

Owning the War

Putin’s ownership of the war has been a process of escalating commitment. Initially, the invasion was framed as a “special military operation,” projected to be swift and straightforward. However, instead of a smooth three-day invasion of Kyiv, Russian forces faced robust resistance, eventually leading to a withdrawal.

Next, Putin announced a mass mobilization to fortify the front lines, marking the second step of his commitment. The third step involved the formal annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson Oblasts, despite the lack of international recognition. This annexation served the dual purpose of circumventing rules against deploying Russian conscripts abroad and reinforcing the narrative of the Russian-Ukrainian unity under Moscow’s rule.

By owning the war, Putin has put himself at risk should the war fail. Historically, failed wars have toppled governments in Russia, like the Romanov Dynasty following the February Revolution in 1917, leading to the rise of the Soviet Union later that same year.

The Evidence

Russia’s continued offensive, despite the chilling onset of winter, points towards Putin’s survivalist motives. The option was there to consolidate Russia’s gains and capitalize on the advantages of defensive warfare. Instead, Russia launched an offensive, while also preparing for a potential Ukrainian spring counteroffensive.

Why Bakhmut?

While the case can be made for Putin’s incentive to continue the offensive, it doesn’t necessarily explain why Bakhmut became the primary focus of Russia’s military efforts. On examining the map of Eastern Ukraine, four potential targets emerge.

The northern regions reclaimed by Ukraine seemed unlikely of being targets due to logistical difficulties and Ukraine’s defensive depth in the area. The far south, including Crimea, offers a tempting target but presents its own challenges due to the potential for NATO intervention and the difficulty of launching an amphibious invasion. To the west, the regions of Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro were more obvious choices as they are population centers and would provide Russia with a significant advantage.

However, capturing these locations would mean bypassing the fortified lines in Donetsk and Luhansk, potentially risking a counterattack. Bakhmut, on the other hand, lies at the junction of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv Oblasts. By controlling Bakhmut, Russia could cut off Ukraine’s access to these regions and fortify their front lines.

Conclusion

While the Battle of Bakhmut and Russia’s continued offensive seem irrational in light of the substantial human cost and diplomatic consequences, they can be understood as a desperate bid to salvage a deteriorating situation. From Putin’s perspective, failure could mean not only the loss of political power but also potential personal peril. Hence, in this high-stakes game, Putin has staked everything on the ‘Bakhmut roulette,’ hoping that the gamble will pay off.

The outcome of this gamble is yet to be seen, and it depends on a myriad of factors. Whether Putin will find his resurrection or meet his downfall is a question only time will answer. However, the tragic cost of this conflict, both in terms of lives lost and geopolitical instability, remains undeniable and serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of political gambles.