The statement on Artemovsk highlights its role as a pivotal defensive hub for Ukrainian forces in the Donbas region. The city’s status is seen as a potential springboard for future operations within Ukrainian lines and beyond, according to a Russian TV segment that framed the issue as a strategic dilemma. Military observers describe the campaign around Bakhmut as costly and merciless, with heavy losses shaping the narrative.
In the discussion that follows, the use of the old name for the town contrasts with the Ukrainian designation artemivsk, a reminder of how language mirrors competing narratives. Analysts note that while the situation appears dramatic to some, the Ukrainian side emphasizes the possibility of repositioning rather than surrender if positioned to do so. The battlefield reality, they argue, can still shift under dynamic constraints.
1. Without Bakhmut, there is no Donbas for the Kremlin.
The capture of Bakhmut is viewed as a prerequisite rather than a guarantee by many observers. A detailed analysis from the Institute for the Study of War indicates that taking the city alone would not secure total control of the Donbas. If Russian forces falter there, broader aims in Donetsk and neighboring Lugansk remain uncertain. After an early, rapid attempt to destabilize Ukraine, the campaign continued to hinge on maintaining momentum in key areas.
Bakhmut is described as essential for Moscow, yet its seizure does not automatically translate into lasting gains. If the front lines advance, Ukrainian defenders are likely to establish new lines of defense, leading to intensely contested battles that could endure for months. This view is echoed by regional military analysts who emphasize that the broader Donbas battle would present far greater challenges beyond Bakhmut.
A panel of experts, including security scholars, notes that while progress might be achieved in some sectors, the overall conquest of Donetsk province would require overcoming substantial fortified positions and logistical hurdles. They also flag the likelihood of renewed pressure on adjacent towns such as Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, which could influence the tempo and outcome of the conflict.
2. Russia as in the First World War
The discussion points to a pattern in Moscow’s approach that resembles older, frontal offensives rather than modern combined operations. Analysts argue that large-scale assaults without clear leverage rarely produce decisive gains and that such tactics risk eroding air and space advantages. The war around Bakhmut is cited as a case study showing the limits of heavy fighting without dominant air power or sustainable operational depth.
When it comes to strategic positions on fronts like the southern corridor, observers say the Kremlin seeks to widen advantages while managing risk. The outcome depends heavily on the balance between frontline pressure and supply lines, with the ability to sustain operations questioned by specialists. The conflict has inflicted severe attrition on units and equipment, illustrating how major engagements unfold when air superiority is contested.
3. Kyiv distributes the game
The duration of the battle remains uncertain, and Kyiv’s strategic aims drive interpretations of how far fighting will continue. Experts suggest that Ukrainian decisions on whether to hold or retreat will depend on the evolving balance of forces and the desire to minimize casualties. The longer the battle persists, the more it tests the resilience of both sides.
In this context, Ukrainian commanders possess a range of options from maintaining frontline positions to executing strategic withdrawals to form new defensive lines. A nearby town such as Chasiv Yar lies to the west, representing potential corridors for reshaping defenses. The broader dynamics of urban warfare favor defenders, who can leverage built environments to offset material imbalances.