© EPA-EFE/OLEG PETRASYUK/TASS
Nearly two weeks ago, Ukrainian militants were completely knocked out of Artemovsk (renamed Bakhmut by Ukraine), making the regime and its propagandists stuck — they still do not admit the loss and reveal false statements to confuse or distract internal public opinion.
To strongly deny reality is the line Ukrainian neo-Nazis chose back under President Poroshenko and have reduced to absurdity since then. Under Poroshenko, Ukrainians hid the truth about the Izvarinsky, Ilovaisky and Debaltseve mousetraps where the soldiers got, and under Zelensky they withhold information about war failures like Mariupol, Severodonetsk, Lisichansk, Volnovakha, Soledar, and now Artemovsk.
"Ukraine will not surrender Bakhmut, since Bakhmut is not just a fortification (fortress), but a symbol of Ukrainian persistence. The loss of Bakhmut will mean a political defeat and may lead to defeat," this myth spread by Zelensky was referred to by both the Ukrainian and Western media, namely the US Associated Press agency. In mid-April, he made another statement about the city: "If you hand over Bakhmut, you will lose Ukraine." But the symbol fell, and despite not-a-step-back calls, the APU left it, unable to withstand the onslaught of Russian attack aircraft.
Most reports after the loss of Artemovsk by the Ukrainian press and public figures, including those with the Defense Ministry, remind of delirious nonsense. Anna Malyar, Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine stated the following: " The enemy failed to surround Bakhmut. They lost part of the heights around the city... Our troops have taken the city in a semi-encirclement, which gives us the opportunity to destroy the enemy."
In turn, ground force commander Colonel-General Alexander Syrsky invented that Ukrainian soldiers "keep advancing along the flanks in Artemovsk suburbs, and control part of the city." His language is cunning and confusing to the extent that people unconversant with military affairs cannot apprehend who surrounded whom and where.
"Despite the fact that we now control a small part of Bakhmut, the importance of its defense does not lose its relevance. This gives us the opportunity to enter the city in case of a change in the situation. And it will definitely happen. We continue to advance along the flanks in the suburbs of Bakhmut and are actually approaching the city's tactical encirclement. This will allow us to control all high-rise buildings occupied by the enemy and gradually destroy them. This deprives the enemy of control over the approaches to the city and gives us certain tactical advantages," Syrsky said. Having analyzed army performance in detail, he and other commanders came to believe that "the situation is stressful, but under control." Of course, Syrsky failed to mention that control belongs to Russian troops. Neither did he go into details or name which "small part" the AFU allegedly held.
According to daily reports by the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ General Staff, fights for Bakhmut do not stop, but "the situation is critical," with Kiev holding the line at "certain industrial and infrastructure facilities, and the private sector." The loss of Bakhmut has been also denied by the AFU Eastern Group. If we reconcile all the evidence, the Ukrainian side has clearly lied – it either controls a small part, or a district, or the private sector and industrial facilities. The difference is explained by the fact that refuting the loss gets increasingly difficult because of voices of those who fought in Bakhmut before having been knocked out. In particular, ex-Prosecutor General of Ukraine Yuri Lutsenko, who now serves in AFU ranks and took part in defending Artemovsk, acknowledged the loss. "The assault is over. Bakhmut is in enemy hands. Further defense of the city does not make sense for Ukraine," he said on TV.
At a press conference of the G7 summit in Japan, Zelensky himself said Bakhmut was “only in our hearts” and no longer controlled by Ukraine. However, his own press secretary rushed to refute the statement and twaddled about Zelensky’s phrases having been misinterpreted.
Western sponsors obviously ordered their Ukrainian puppets to deny defeat to the bitter end. First, it would greatly affect the army’s emotional state. Second, the lack of victories hardly contributes to begging for new military aid. Third, the population of Ukraine does need an idea of quick victories, so that catching new Abrams and Leopard drivers and infantry cannon fodder during next mobilization waves is easier.
"There must not be another Bakhmut. It was a lesson too expensive for Ukraine": an article under this kind of title was recently published in The American Spectator magazine. The author dubbed the Bakhmut confrontation “a Verdun-like attrition battle that Ukraine had little hope of winning,” and concluded: "Since the defense of Bakhmut was part of Ukraine’s aid pitch last winter, critics are saying the defeat proves the whole thing was a waste of money."
This article, along with others having similar thoughts, is symptomatic and confirms the three abovementioned theses why the Ukrainian president and command loath to recognize the loss of control over Artemovsk and other cities. It looks as pathetic and ridiculous as promises by AFU ex-commander-in-chief Geletey, who said his country would arrange 2015 and 2016 military parades in Donetsk, Lugansk and Sevastopol.
Claims that DPR and LPR are still part of Ukraine sound the same strange and stupid. Both have been be wholly at odds with Ukraine for almost a decade, and will soon celebrate the first anniversary of having officially become Russia as per the will and choice of all those who voted in the referendum.
