Bakhmut became a symbol for both countries in this war. Russia does not spare either people or shells in order to feed its population at least some "victory". For Ukraine, Bakhmut has become synonymous with Ukrainian resistance in recent weeks, even in official reports it is referred to as a "fortress". However, perhaps from a purely military point of view it would be better to withdraw from the city? This version is considered in the material of The Washington Post. For a long time, Bakhmut was a convenient location from which to shoot down Russian manpower with relatively small losses of its own. However, the pressure of the Russians did not decrease over time. "We could kill five people out of ten in their squad - and in two hours they restored their numbers," the publication quotes one of the Ukrainian fighters. This limitless manpower made it possible for the "Wagnerians" to attack one position of the Armed Forces 6-7 times a day. Now, with the advance of the Russians in the Soledar region, the situation may become even more complicated, and Ukrainian losses may increase. This is especially inappropriate, considering Ukraineʼs preparations for another counteroffensive. In order for this operation to be successful, it is necessary to accumulate a significant part of trained personnel and high-quality equipment and ammunition. Equipment is now arriving to Ukrainians - in particular, the allies have finally agreed to send tanks to Ukraine. More about heavy armored vehicles will probably be discussed at the Ramstein-style meeting of defense ministers of Ukraineʼs allies on January 20. However, this does not remove the caution about manpower. If Ukraine now loses a lot of its fighters in the Bakhmut region, the planned offensive operation may not give the desired results. American politicians are also worried about this - and all the respondents interviewed by WP from among them assure that it is up to Ukraine to decide, however, Bakhmut is not a strategically important city at the moment, its affiliation to any side will not affect the course of the war. Fighting for it now is not so much a military as a political issue.
How did the war affect other post-Soviet countries? The editors of the Canadian edition of the National Post asked themselves this question: its journalist Paul Robital is traveling through these countries, trying to notice and describe the changes in society that are taking place in the countries of the former communist camp due to the aggression of Russia. From 1990 to 1996, she lived permanently in the territory of the former USSR, covering the transition of countries from socialism to capitalism, and this affects her perception of current events happening around her. One of the first articles of the project concerns Latvia and begins with the moment when Paul drinks coffee in a cozy cafe in the center of Riga, calculating euros. In 1990, when she was here for the first time, there was little hint of such a prospect. However, now the locals, as the journalist writes, feel the fragility of their lives every day. From Riga to the borders of actually hostile Russia and Belarus from Riga - a couple of hours by car. Former Latvian government official Nils Muzineks, who met her in Riga, assures: feeling this, Latvians consider the Ukrainian-Russian war their own too, and the countryʼs aid to Kyiv is one of the largest, if you compare its volume with the size of Latviaʼs GDP. This fueled inflation, which last year was 21% in Latvia. However, what has changed the most in the life of the country is the field for compromise between the Latvian and Russian-speaking parts of the country. The Russian-speaking population, brought here during the times of the USSR, mostly from Slavic countries, is one million out of a country of three million. According to a survey conducted at the beginning of the war, a quarter of this million were hostile to the war, a quarter were favorable, and another quarter were undecided. Latvia is rapidly severing any ties with Russia, its economy or culture: the state stopped teaching Russian in schools and universities, canceled the residence permit of rich Russians in exchange for investments: now many valuable lots from Latvia are displayed on real estate sales sites , and jewelry stores in the center of Riga suffer from a lack of clientele. Even Russian-speaking politicians from Latvia admit that the measures are too drastic. However, they cannot do otherwise due to the general pressure of society. After all, most of the million non-Latvians are already fluent in Latvian, would rather go to Berlin or London than Moscow, and prefer to call themselves "Russian-speaking Latvians, EU citizens". Many ethnic Russians distanced themselves from Russia because of this war - as local politician Borys Chilevychs, a Russian-speaker himself, said: "Putin has in fact become the biggest Russophobe in history."