The summary of the 451st day in Bakhmut, as of 22:00 – 20th May 2023 (Kyiv time).
Due to the changes in the city of Bakhmut, we’re releasing an extra summary solely focused on the Bakhmut. The classic summaries remain bi-daily.
Bakhmut City
the city of Bakhmut
- Wagner mercenaries raised its flags on the western edge of the city near Khromove, residential area in the western part and on other places. Ukrainian troops have withdrawn towards the heights in the west and Ivanivske settlement. (source)
- Ukrainian artillery shelled enemy soldiers west of Bakhmut Industrial College. (source)
- The leader of Wagner mercenaries announced the capture of Bakhmut today. Ukrainian officials denied such claims, saying they still control part of the city.
- Based on the available footage and as of writing of this summary, there has been no proof that Wagner mercenaries captured the plane monument area on the south-western outskirts. The city remains contested.
Looking for an interactive map? We got you covered. Visit our original Deployment map.
If you would like to use our maps in your project, video or any other media, please visit Invasion maps page for more information.
This summary and detailed maps are based on the following sources:
General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, official media channels of Ukrainian regional administrations, Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and geolocated footage.
We also thank the following Twitter users for their geolocations and amazing work: @neonhandrail, @auditor_ya and the team at @geoconfirmed.
I’m surprised Ukrainians held on in Bakhmut for so long. Many military “experts” said Bakhmut would fall long time ago and that it had no strategic importance to Ukr and should’ve been abandoned. Don’t get that reasoning unless Ukr losses were immense or risk encirclement. I think Ukr side is more right saying if not for Bakhmut then the orcs would already be destroying another city, then another.
I love the cope of bakhmut falling, it’s very funny tbh
the so called ‘stalingrad’ has fallen to the enemy. this very important and very symbolic city, became the exact opposite after it fell to the russians. how people don’t see how they themselfes into this trap is beyond me, but good to know that convicts with only shovels are better than professional soliders with endless supplies and moral
it’s scary how hard poeple tried to convince themselfes of the unimportance of this city, just to make a BIG deal out of it after it fell. must be very unimportant indeed.
I don’t get why you seem to think there’s a contradiction regarding the importance of Bakhmut
Strategically it’s not more important than any other city and not worth the costs of a direct assault for 10 months.
But the city did gain importance precisely because RU was willing to attrition themselves to death to capture it. That made it important for UA to optimally use that attrition opportunity
Bakhmut was important indeed, until Russians razed to the ground. However, from the strategic point of view, the battle was important as well. It allowed Ukrainians to form a dozen of new brigades, and helped to convince the West to supply tanks, APCs and long-range missiles to Ukraine.
It is still a fortress, even if it’s badly destroyed. the destruction probably helps with the defensiveness of the city, so I wouldn’t say it’s important Status fell after the Russians took it. Not mentioning the opportunities the town allows for the Russians
They would’ve got the equipment anyway tho, but the men lost will not return and Ukraine lost a lot of very good men. was it worth it?
The opportunities if Russia can fend of the Ukrainian offensive I should mention and secure the city for good.
War is unpredictable and anything can happen, especially during an offensive some surprising things may happen, as seen previously in this war.
It all comes down to the strategic planning of both sides
No, ruins are not good for defense.
What gave you that idea??
Actual buildings are better than rubble on the floor.
So no, it’s not a fortress.
And since it’s attritional value has been used up it is now once again a strategically unimportant city as it was before
Monte Cassino! Think when it became more difficult to overcome it. Before or after it was raised to the ground?
I agree that Bakhmut is symbolic and a trap for the Russian army. No one said “convicts with only showel” except russian bots: wagner is the only group of the russian army that archieved something during the winter offensive.
Now, if you analyse the situation, Bakhmut is a strategic defeat for Russia. They gained nothing valuable, it cost them a lot and the counteroffensive is coming.
The communication from both side is very confusing today, Russian say they captured the town and Ukrainian say they already nearly encircled the city from the last army quote from UKR ground force commander.
If we add the disturbing and unaccurate talk of Zelensky at G7 meeting in Japan. There is a lot of “blurry communication” from both side. Guess we will know for sure in a couple days who lie!
Yeah it’s really very confusing. But Ukraine definitely isn’t close to encircling the city, might have been a mistranslation or misunderstanding. We will see in a few days
Deepstatemap hasn’t been updated for 48H, which is unusual. I’d be curious to see their assessment of changes on the ground.
The 3rd separate assault brigade of Azov writes about advancing the military 700 meters deep, 1700 m long. The task was performed by the 2nd assault brigade. The Russian 72nd brigade will suffer again, the Russians really have some problems near Klishchiivka.
That’s was I writing about the other day. If Ukraine captures the heights west of Klishiivka, then the Russians will be in real trouble. The stakes are high and Bakhmut is not the end.
The update is out. It shows Russian progress in Bakhmut with a very small part of the city still in Ukraine’s control. Otherwise, no UKR advances on the flanks in the last 48H.
Ok now looking beyond the fog:
(1) will Wagner really leave after May 25?
(2) will UKR keep pushing on the flanks and eventually capture Klishiivka?
(3) when will Zaporozhie attack start?
(4) Is Zaluzhny still alive?
1) I don’t know and I don’t care
2) Ukrainians will continue to fix Russian troops around Bakhmut
3) nobody knows where or when the offensive will start
4) yes, why are you even asking?
Calm down, I am just asking questions.
Calm down, I am just answering them.
Apart from parroting, what else can you do?
I provide verified informations and some analysis about this war, and I debunk the delusions of russian trolls. I also provide a correct answer to your questions when I can.
And you, apart from voting for crooked politicians, what else can you do ?
It’s true that you provide some (biased) analysis, but all the rest is wrong, including who you think I’m voting for.
Its a victory day for you.
Why are you so agressive? you should be happy.
I am happy regardless of whether it is victory day or not.
And I am also quite happy that I was right when I wrote last year that Bakhmut would be captured when many here where jumping up and down and frantically chanting “Bakhmut will not fall”. So much for their good analysis and foresight.
You wrote it would be taken at the end of january. You prediction was 4 months too early, not very accurate for a 10 months long battle. So no, you were not right.
I really don’t understand why you’re insisting. Last year, I predicted that Bakhmut would fall. You were saying it would not. That settles it.
I insist because you are not telling the truth. End of december, you predict that Wagner, not RU military, will take Bakhmut about 1 month later. You were wrong on both (Wagner needed RU military to capture the city).
And I never said “Bakhmut will never fall”. On the contrary, I said several times that Ukrainians will retreat from Bakhmut if they have to, and that is what happened.
My God, quelle mauvaise foi. Who cares if it’s Wagner or the RU military? It’s the RU forces! Who care if it was in January or May? It’s the RESULT that counts, i.e. WHO won the match, not WHEN the goals were scored.
Finally, I did NOT say you claimed Bakhmut would NEVER be captured (mensonge éhonté!). I said, and I repeat, that in your comments it was clear that, unlike me, you doubted the Russians would manage to capture Bakhmut. I was right, you were wrong – QED.
maybe you should quote what I said, instead of using a strawman argument.
You cared, back then.
It’s clear you have nothing to say. Normal.
The Russian leadership will do everything to prevent Wagner from being released from Bakhmut, it seems to me that way for some reason.
There will be a simple leveling of the front after the loss of Bakhmut. The Ukrainians will occupy heights from which it will be possible to control certain areas of the front well, and they will have the opportunity to shell Bakhmut.
Probably, after all, the same counter-offensive will be in the middle of June – the middle of July, because everything is progressing rather sluggishly.
And about Zaluzhnyi, there is a rather interesting question, time will tell.
Thanks for your constructive feedback. I tend to agree.
My 2 cents. #3 didn’t happen yet and in fact it might never happen. The stakes are high and the associated risk of failure might be unacceptable for Ukraine. And #4 – if really true – hardly improves the odds. Zelensky is on tour, until he is back nothing happens.
It’s a positional war, Guderian-style offensives probably will start only when and if one of the sides is sufficiently degraded.
3 ) wait, russia just start to relocate (under himars fire) troops from zapo front to bakmut front.
nb: and this relocations are an answer to those who were dreaming about a secret russian army in reserve.
Congratulations, RussianBot, you just proved that you don’t understand anything about this war! Here are your 30 rubles.
“The city remains contested.”
Russian observers predicted that reaction to a tee. First, the pro-ukrainian sources are going to pretend that they’re defending one last square foot. Next, they are going to say that Bakhmut had no strategic importance. Watch this space.
One can definitely call the capture of Bakhmut, or what is left of it, a successful military operation for the second largest military (even though the whole “operation” was conducted by PMC).
16.06 mi², 224 days, 20 000 – 30 000 russians dead and another 50 000 – 70 000 injured.
Truly, a feast of russian strategists’ to behold.
Yes, I was planning to write the same. The Russians occupied a small town at great cost, which took them 5 months. If this is their “success”, what does failure look like?
Regards.
I love illiterate Russian trolls talking about the war.
Go on, share with us the strategic importance of Bakhmut, explain to us why the Russians were bashing their heads for 9 months and losing tens of thousand of men for the city.
How about you tell us why it was so important for Ukraine to keep Bakhmut and they had to keep pouring reinforcements is it despite the heavy losses? I don’t believe it is strategically important but I am not a general, not even Ukrainian or Russian to have a possible reason for that! And yes, I am expecting denials about the Ukrainian losses from those who deny even the obvious thing.
It is easier to defend rather than to attack. Generally attackers (according to Napoleon) have to have atleast 2x more troops than defenders.
Sitting inside a building/trench and defending is easier and has less losses than attacking trench and running towards it in open fields. (Im also not an expert)
When they attack you from 3 sides, when you see the barrage of artillery in videos and when you pour continuously reinforcements because obviously you have losses, otherwise no need for that ( Americans advised to evacuate Bakhmut months ago because couldn’t defend it without high losses) you can’t claim that is easier to defend. Ask the Iraqis when they were defending about American losses.
Shit, just realised that I forgot a “t” at the end of food for thought. 🙂
That’s funny. I did not realize it until you mentioned it.
That does not apply when heavy artillary, thermobaric bombs and white phosporous are raining down on defenders positions.
You can find interviews from generals etc. Ukraine goal in Bakhmut was to incur as heavier losses to Russians as possible.
At the beginning. Everything changed when Russian almost encircled the city and cut most of the supply roads. And to be honest you can find interviews of whatever claim you want.
Easy!!
Bakhmut wasn’t important until RU showed itself willing to attrition themselves to death there. That made holding Bakhmut for as long as possible while limiting UA losses as much as possible a sound strategy, and thus the city BECAME important. Now that its attritional value has been spent, it becomes unimportant again.
Are you aware that the Ukrainians had big loses on not some kind of poor trained conscripts but on elite battle hardened forces? What you described happened at the beginning. When the city was surrounded and attacked from 3 sides this stopped applying.
It is important for Ukraine to defend every sq meter of its territory.
Bakhmut lost all strategic importance in October, when Ukrainians liberated Izioum and Lyman. Every serious military analyst says that.
And if you think the battle is over, you are wrong.
according to Prighozin, Girkin or Murz (not mentioning the others from RU media space) the town has and had not military significance, especially considering the cost in resources and time spent for that archivement.
So…
quoting Girkin’s last long Telegram tantrum (translation thanks to courtessy of @wartranslated), only conclusion because it is really LONG:
I think Bakhmut for Russians was like a medal. They needed it to show more propaganda – “Look we are winning we took a city URAAAAA!”
Especially after teritory losses or “tactical retreats” they did last year in Kharkiv and Cherson. Since losing those Russians havent had any significant victory in the whole year in terms of occupations
Mr Girkin doesn’t strike me as the sharpest tool in the box. Of course Bakhmut is PR, both sides made it so, but it’s a loss for Ukraine, win for Russia even if in terms of PR and morale only, which all things considered is kind of important methinks
Wrong… It’s a military success of Ukraine. If they hadn’t held Bakhmut for so long, the Russians would now be in Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, which are far more important cities for Ukraine and destruction and capture is a disaster.But now is the time when Ukraine has much more Western weapons and defense of these two cities is easier for Ukraine and for Russians, because of the enormous losses…
… it is much easier to conquer.Three months ago the Russians would have flattened both Kramatorsk and Mariupol, but now they don’t have any more resources because they were wasted in Bachmuth.Bakhmut is a pawn sacrifice for Kramatorsk and Sloviansk safety.
Buying time argument is perfectly reasonable of course. But it’s not a military success, you cannot call it that. Sacrificing a pawn simply means you’re down a pawn. Whether it was worth it depends on what comes after. And whether the Russians are indeed weakened and the Ukrainians are stronger after Bakhmut we’ll see in the upcoming months
It should be said that otherwise Kramatorsk would look like Mariupol did back then.
I’d not invite him on dinner – he’s known, convicted terrorist and quite shady figure afterall – still his insights, extracted from a flood of typical braindead BS and fascists narratives, were usually on, or close to the point. From the Feb.
But if you prefer Konashenkov’s or Skabayeva fluffs – your brain, your damage.
Girkin is kind of an ultra nationalist himself – so there is a little contradiction – but he is an avid critic of the Russian military command and he is saying the things that you like. This is called confirmation bias, but I am sure you know this.
No, I don’t prefer Konashenkov, you presume too much about me. All propaganda – Russian, Ukrainian or whatever – must be taken sceptically
Girkin is not a ‘peron’ per se, he is one of the enablers – venting and introducing to the public space particular views of one of the ‘Kremlin’s Towers’. His view of an abysmall state of the army and the whole ‘operation’ was (and still is) on point. His desire of ‘total war right now’ is a nonsense – RU would just break apart, which niether he nor his faction cannot see –>
–> being blinded by phantasms of ‘Power of Russia’. That – actually knows the ‘Putin’s’ Power Vertical – therefore you have got steady turn into deeper authoritarian state in intention to actually make a ‘total war’ in a decade or so.
And this is not my confirmation bias, but a point of view these scholars who, unlike many experts knows RUssia, including language.
With all my contempt for Girkin: if Russia had listened to Girkin, Ukraine would have a much bigger problem than it has today.
Perhaps, but Russia would have an even bigger problem in the long run. Girkin is a kind of an idiot, whatever you think of him, imho.
Anyway, states usually do not listen to a single dude
The conquest will bring no benefit to the Russians. Bachmuth is now strategically useless because it is just a pile of rubble. It is no longer possible to set up military bases, military equipment cannot enter the city and attacks from there can no longer be carried out because all the routes in and out have been destroyed.Wagner have self-destructed a forward base for the next advance.
Not necessarily “self-destructed”. It seems Prigozhin didn’t capture Bakhmut for Wagner, but due to orders he received, and after fulfilling these orders he’s happy to disengage and leave the pile of rubble to regular Russian army.
Bakhmut is the bridgehead for new conquests and a strong blow to Ukrainian morale, remember how many times it was said from the Ukrainian high command that
Bakhmut would hold on at all costs or if Bakhmut fell another city would become a new Bakhmut
It was said hundreds of times from Ukraine military command that Bakhmut will be defended but not at any costs. The city is completely destroyed and has hold out as long as it was necessary.
If you think it wasn’t defended at any cost, then what does defending at any cost mean?
Ukrain didnt have to use their reserves. for russia it was the battle. for ukrain, it was just a battle.
Ukraine has paid a heavy price for trying to hold on to Bakhmut but has still not succeeded , on the other hand although Bakhmut is currently uninhabitable it is still a military fortress
They stop massiv attack during months. job is done. Russian pay more, a lot of more.
But rashists got used to that. Half of their country looks like Bakhmut now, like pile of rubble.
so y didnt Ukrainian army just give it up weeks ago? the city was already ruined then and couldnt bring any benefit to Ukraine either
The purpose of the defense was only to keep Wagner PMC there. And even so, the Russians have withdrawn a lot of military elsewhere, just to get Bachmut. Thus, Ukraine could calmly prepare for counteroffensives, while the best units of the Russians are tied to one point. As long as this was possible, Ukraine defended Bachmut.
Meanwhile, the champaigne factory is not only in good order, but has 6,000,000 bottles in the warehouse. Rubble, right. It’s only rubble where the retreating Ukrainians blew things up.