After the Battle for Bakhmut

On the ground as Russian forces close in on a nearby town—and some weary locals refuse to leave.

By
34
(Residents of Chasiv Yar. Credit: Mykola Pastukh.)

CHASIV YAR, Ukraine—Sergei Lyshakov did not flinch at the lone artillery shell whistling through the air. The round landed some distance away from his apartment block, the explosion muffled by the much louder snaps from the constant outgoing artillery fire. Why did the 60-year-old retired electrician remain so calm?

“If it whistles strongly, then you know where it is,” he explained, alluding to the oft-repeated battlefield wisdom that victims of shelling do not hear the incoming screech. “If it’s far away, it means they’re shooting from there to there, not at us but past us.”

(Sergei Lyshakov. Credit: Bennett Murray.)

As Russian forces attempt to complete their encirclement of the eastern Ukrainian town of Bakhmut, Chasiv Yar sits at the tip of the enemy’s southern pincer. If Bakhmut falls, locals here believe their town will become the next focus of Russia’s push into the Donbas.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
34
By
Comments (34)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    So what if the Russians succeed? What then?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Thomas Grimmer

      Continuation of genocide.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        Unless we send troops first.

        I just hope and pray the Ukrainians win. Our rhetoric has largely painted us into a corner.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Thomas Grimmer

          The "Nie wieder" we all wrote was a lie.

          Genocidal fascists paint us into a corner, not our rhetoric. I'm fine with being a coward, at least I'm honest about it.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

            I worry about all those who say we need to arm Ukraine to defeat the horrible Russians. But if Ukraine loses, are people alright with Russia winning?

            I'm hoping, but not confident, of Ukraine winning. Putin is willing to sacrifice soldiers, which gives him an advantage in staying power.

            Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    PamF

    I'm curious about the trees in the pictures, why are the trunks darker above about 4 ft?

    Collapse
    1. RC

      Painted for visibility at night.

      Collapse
    2. Iblamethedrugs

      My guess is that it's a guide for following the road at night.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        WilliamJ

        I remember they were painted in the mountains near Mexico City. I understand it's to protect against too great a temp swing, very cold at night, then heating in the sun in the day.

        Collapse
        1. Iblamethedrugs

          So many fun facts!

          Collapse
  3. Nikki H.

    Great update from Chasiv Yar! It’s interesting to hear the stories of people who choose to stay in these front line towns. I also hope these reported estimates of five to one losses of soldiers are true, but fear they are not. Nice to see you in The Dispatch after following your work and updates on Twitter this last year.

    Collapse
    1. Neelthakrebew

      Given the type of combat involved at Bakhmut—Russian infantry attacking entrenched, prepared positions— a casualty rate of five to one is quite conservative. The defenders have a gigantic advantage.

      Someone described WWI trench warfare as an attempt to wear out German machine guns using the chests of young Englishmen.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    Ukraine will eventually have to settle for something. The West will fail Ukraine in time. Here is an article from the Washington Post. It has a graph of what we are capable of producing in terms of
    ammunition and the weapons the Ukrainians are using. This has become a war of attrition. Due to the end of the Cold War we have lost our manufacturing capacity.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/

    Putin can kill as many of his soldiers as he wants. He will ramp up manufacturing as will his allies China and Iran and North Korea. He will wait us out because he knows the West is weak and undetermined. The West is more of France and Germany rather than an Israel.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      We can regain our manufacturing capability. At the beginning of WWII we were a basket case. By the end we were out-producing the entire world many times over. I suspect this is even more accelerated in the age of more hi-tech weapons.

      And Russia has long-term problems of her own. The longer the war goes on, the longer Europe and the rest of the western world has to structurally isolate Russia economically. The Soviet Union fell for this reason.

      Putin's best hope remains putting a MAGA Republican in the White House.

      If we cannot defeat Russia than China will know for certain they cannot be defeated either, and they will attack our allies and interests at will. In short, defeat in Ukraine is too horrible to contemplate.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      MatthewRobin

      The West is not involved, just America. Europe should be embarrassed that, even 80 years after WW2 and 30 years after the end of the Cold War, they still need to cry to daddy America to save them from their own stupidity.

      https://app.23degrees.io/view/KJpesgWQv1CmxoMr-bar-stacked-horizontal-figure-5_scv

      Collapse
      1. Safety Cone

        A bit over broad, no? Europe remains an area. We don't say Asia is at war with Ukraine. Who spends more of their GDP on this, US, Poland, Estonia, Finland, Sweden? Who took in the biggest burden of refugees? Which supplied more of their own defensive weapons and spent down reserves? Who is at both greater risk of, and less able to thwart an expanding Russia?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          MatthewRobin

          "A bit over broad, no?"
          If your believe that my comment is just a bit over broad, then you believe my comment is directionally correct

          "Europe remains an area. We don't say Asia is at war with Ukraine."
          The next sentence that you wrote shows that you know what I mean when I say Europe.

          "Who is at both greater risk of, and less able to thwart an expanding Russia?"
          That was a conscious choice made by Europe, they are fully capable of managing the Russian military. But why take responsibility for the security of your continent when America will do it for you.

          Collapse
          1. Safety Cone

            No. I am not unwittingly in agreement even directionally. I see it conceptually quite differently.

            It's ok to not care about the fates of various peoples, cultures or countries elsewhere? Is that the point? Some mix of original sin and lazy ingratitude sticks to them as a consequence of history and geography? That nation doesn't deserve defending in the present? That's a belief or strategy that could shape policy. But one can hold that view while still acknowledging that 'Europe' writ large is a strawman. It's built to avoid a real debate about policy. 'Europe' has never existed in the past, and likely never will. I don't expect a unified 'North America' to emerge and doubt anyone ever thinks of NA in that construct. Nor should they. But I would hope we assist Mexico if it's invaded by China. And I hope they and a stable Ukraine would help us in turn. Would you prefer letting Canada and Mexico fall or because they share our continent they are somehow more deserving?

            Are you debating that some countries in Europe are not doing far more as relates to their population size and economic power to assist Ukraine than is the US? Because that's nonsense.

            That France, Germany or Zimbabwe isn't doing enough doesn't mean we shouldn't do more to speed up a deserved Russian defeat. Heck, provide them all they need. Let Ukraine push them back to Moscow, take away their nukes then perhaps Russia can have it's Mussolini moment to bury insane notions of historical grandeur and expansion. Let them focus instead on corrosion from within. Russia acts as a thug and bully to a nascent liberal democracy. If Ukraine survives it might come out of this as a long term strategic ally more philosophically in tune with the US than many already in the G7.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      DougCLE

      Yes, because France and Germany don’t know anything about wars of attrition, or how to ramp up arms production.

      Meanwhile, I don’t know about Iran, but if China makes its weapons as well as it makes the equipment it’s been trying to market to my customers, the Russians will be lucky if they don’t blow themselves to hell the first time they pull the trigger.

      I am already on record saying that Ukraine may have to accept a negotiated settlement that includes some concessions, assuming the West doesn’t enter the war directly, which it still seems loath to do. But we’re not to that point yet.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Earl King

        In the article it says it will take quite a number of years for us to ramp up. Germany is so afraid of anything having to do with war as it that is not obvious. I think underestimating autocratic countries who have demonstrated waring capabilities is not particularly smart. We had guys with AK 47’s wearing pajamas defeat us in Vietnam. Similarly in Afghanistan. Hubris is the last thing we need in our Generals...so hopefully they have not been infected with that kind of thinking. I remember Obama calling ISIS a JV team.....

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          DougCLE

          Another way of looking at it is that Ukraine is the wake-up call we needed regarding arms production and military capacity. We have been reminded that the imperial aspirations of tyrants - and their willingness to cause destruction and misery in service of same - did not just go away in 1989. It's a timely reminder indeed, given China's own ambitions. If I were Xi, I would be cursing Putin for setting the U.S. and its allies back to a more Cold War mentality before I was ready to make my move.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Earl King

            As I said however, China is as aware of production problems as we should be. We can do a short war, which is what breaking a blockade would be. You either win or lose. It will be decided in a few days...The bigger question is how long would China attempt to sustain it while knowing we have don’t have the stockpiles for a long term navel war. Our win would likely have to be decisive in order for them to stand down. That represents a lose of face which I’m not sure Xi could withstand. It is a terrifying thought for both countries. This is why attempting to prevent war by making Taiwan not worth the attempt is so important. Taiwan could stop an invasion with enough anti ship and anti aircraft missiles if they could hold out. However breaking a blockade would take the US....Right now? Do you think there is a will to do so? I have my doubts. In which case a new sheriff will be in charge in the Pacific. I don’t think that would be in the interest of the US.

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      CVS

      Yeah…if the west is weak, what is a country that relies on Iranian and North Korean manufacturing?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Earl King

        You ask me about countries run by zealots, that have no political constraints and literally can build any amount of weapons? Dangerous.

        If you are implying that neither country represent threats, I feel very sad for you.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Thomas Grimmer

          For what it's worth, I don't think South Korea actually fears the North Korean military. I think it fears 1) China 2) the loss of civilians it would suffer while curb stomping the North Korean military 3) the 50-year Marshall Plan it would take to reconstitute the north from an impoverished slave state.

          Also, no state can build "any amount of weapons." There are always constraints. Let's exploit them.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Earl King

            All I know is that we currently cannot.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          CVS

          I’m implying the obvious: they posses neither the know-how, nor have the materials, to make weapons that can stand up to NATO style weapons in a major land war.

          China may be somewhat different, theirs are still inferior but not as much and they have the sufficient know how and materials.

          But you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel if you’re relying on North Korea for weapons.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Earl King

            Artillery ammunition is difficult to produce. Russia is giving Iran NATO weapons found on the battle field to reverse engineer. They have some pretty good drones based on the one capture in 2011. they also reversed engineered an anti tank battlefield missile. This was all reported on CNN this AM.

            These countries are devoted to making weapons. All three of them. Currently Ukraine is using 7700 artillery shells a day. We only manufacture 14,000 a month. Doesn’t take a math genius to figure out this is unsustainable.

            Collapse