Opinion | Bakhmut - The Battle of Doublethink

By Tom Fowdy

The battle of Bakhmut has been described by some on Twitter as the "largest battle of the 21st century". That's quite the statement to make, but when you look at its competitors, most military confrontations in this century have ended quickly, apart from perhaps the battle of Aleppo in Syria or Mosul in Iraq, leaving of course only other clashes in the Ukraine war itself such as Kyiv or Mariupol. Bakhmut, however, has dragged on for months in an assault that has been led by Russia's Private Military Contractor, the Wagner Group. Over the past few weeks, Russian forces have gradually encircled the city from three sides. Not surprisingly, both contenders claim their side has suffered heavy losses, although it remains impossible to verify the facts.

As the battle reaches its climax, it has become the subject of significant mainstream media coverage. Some believed Ukraine was in the process of retreating, that is until President Zelensky announced last night that they would be effectively doubling down it, ending publicized infighting over the status of the town. Despite this, the mainstream media and the BBC at large continue to lead with the line that Bakhmut is "not strategically" significant, and claim that it is "symbolic" only for a Russia that has "struggled to deliver any positive news to the Kremlin." This narrative of course is a real-time contradiction, why does Ukraine insist on defending a city that is not strategically important, at all costs? And why has it as such become one of the headline battles of the war?

Although said many times before, it needs to be repeated that the western media coverage of the Ukraine war is so-one sided and partisan to the point it has no commitment to the actual facts whatsoever, and has cheerleaded Kyiv to the extent it has failed to be honest with the public and sold them a false narrative. In Britain, which is one of the most unhinged countries when it comes to Ukraine because of this, people are given hundreds of one-sided stories every single day which range from grossly exaggerating Moscow's losses, to continually predicting the illness, death and imminent demise of Putin. Your average Brit can recite Ukraine's grossly exaggerated Russian loss figures, but knows absolutely nothing about Ukraine's own casualties or struggles which fundamentally distorts the reality on the ground.

Of course it is true that Russia has had many setbacks, and underwhelmed in many instances, yet that is also far flung from the narrative of total and imminent defeat as many seem to earnestly believe will happen, even as much as Ukraine "liberating" Crimea. The coverage of the war is of such a nature that everything Russia does is met with full-scale pessimism, as amplified by partisan "narrative shaping" propaganda efforts from the UK Ministry of Defence and the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), whereas everything Ukraine does receives full-scale optimism. Thus, this makes it impossible to offer a balanced assessment of events such as the Battle of Bakhmut, where people merely assume Russia is suffering enormous losses for marginal gains.

But of course, how does that even make sense for a city of "no strategic significance?" and why likewise would Ukraine attach so much importance to defending it? If one looks at a map, Bakhmut is a transit hub and junction of routes in the center of Donetsk Oblast. If it falls, the way is paved to a plethora of other locations, including Ukraine's most important strongholds of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, all situated along a key motorway. While these will not be easy at all to take, even Russia moving into proximity of them and shelling them will severely weaken Ukraine's military footprint in the surrounding region. The so-called analysts repeatedly cited by the BBC and other outlets don't share this obvious geographic truth with the world, but instead propel the absurdity that Russia is exhausting manpower and equipment for PR and symbolic gain.

This is a key example of "doublethink" propaganda. Ukraine is defending a city with everything they have, which is worthless, and refuses to withdraw, whilst Russia is prepared to sacrifice everything for it. All of this thus accumulates in one of the nastiest battles of the entire war, described as the worst this century, for apparently nothing! It is ironic that when Russia was not close to taking the city, Zelensky stated: "the fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and for freedom" and the media endorsed that line. Ukraine's logic of course hasn't changed at all, but the western media's has, because in no circumstances are they willing to be honest with their populations about the truth of this conflict, and you can be assured that if Ukraine manages to push back Russia in such difficult circumstances, it will suddenly be heralded as a massive and strategic victory. Nobody knows the final outcome of the battle of Bakhmut, but we do know in either scenario what the narrative will ultimately be.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | The theory of 'Inverted Totalitarianism' and the US today

Opinion | The US drags the lab leak theory out of the woodwork

Opinion | China's Ukraine diplomatic tightrope

Opinion | The year that changed the world, and the one which will make it