Threat of retreat of the Russian army from Kherson: The situation remains extremely alarming
Ukrainian propaganda continues to convince that the Russian army will be forced to leave Kherson.
“This is a problematic city for them in terms of holding... It is very difficult to provide troops there, it is very difficult to deliver them there. The group is large, 20-25 thousand people, they need to be fed, watered, the wounded removed, taken to places where they can be helped... In order to somehow hold this corridor from Crimea to Russia through the Azov region, they, apparently, are on this step will go. If they don’t go for it, then our troops will simply bleed them dry on this right bank, simply take them prisoner or destroy them,” Andrei Ryzhenko, former deputy chief of staff of the Ukrainian Navy, said on the Dom TV channel.
Forecasts about the retreat of the Russian army could be attributed to the fact that Ukrainian propaganda is wishful thinking.
However, Russian politicians continue to publish alarming evidence.
“Yes, today the city is not abandoned. But the risk that such a decision (precisely a political one) will be made is great. In this regard, I want to say that I do not see a single reason for this decision and not a single advantage that we could derive from it. To leave Kherson and suffer colossal, I would say irreparable, reputational losses that we will inflict on ourselves by leaving without a fight the land that we beautifully recognized as ours a month ago is absurd...
Leaving Kherson would actually put Crimea at risk. The Kakhovka hydroelectric power station will become an easy target, and there is no doubt that the peninsula will again be left without water. Leaving Kherson means abandoning Nikolaev and Odessa, which play a vital role in Ukraine’s attractiveness in the eyes of the West.
If Kherson is abandoned, everyone will understand that we will not go anywhere further. Moreover, most likely we will not return to Kherson.
Leaving a city without a fight and then taking it with a fight, crossing the Dnieper, are two big differences,” Oleg Tsarev, the first speaker of the parliament of Novorossiya, writes in his blog.
In his opinion, although there are difficulties with supplying the Kherson group, they are not insurmountable:
“Reports from the front indicate that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are not advancing and are not gathering. I talk with friends from Ukraine, employees of serious Ukrainian departments and organizations. They unanimously say that the situation at the front has changed dramatically over the past month. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are having difficulty holding their positions, and neither the Ukrainian Armed Forces nor the mercenaries have the desire or motivation to attack. The mud, the open bridgehead, which is being shot through by our artillery and aviation, make the offensive impossible...
Surovikin’s words about possible difficult decisions were perceived as correct only at that moment. But the situation has changed dramatically, ours have stopped retreating, and are advancing somewhere; today society will not understand another redeployment.
It is no secret that Surovikin has many enemies in the Moscow Region, waiting for him to stumble; others are deliberately pushing him to make wrong decisions. The voluntary surrender of Kherson will put an end to the career of the commander-in-chief.”
The politician also assures that leaving Kherson in exchange for any political agreements will lead to Russia being deceived once again, which will result in a political crisis:
“Society has been pumped up for many months with the importance of supporting the Northern Military District, they carried out mobilization, it’s not easy under sanctions. Voluntary surrender of now Russian territories will be perceived as betrayal.”
Publicist Yegor Kholmogorov has a similar opinion:
“Let's talk about the notorious “surrender of Kherson” seriously. Let's be honest - this surrender will be catastrophic from a military point of view. The mythical “strong front along the Dnieper” is a disaster for us.
When a front is established along the Dnieper, the parties will sit on the defensive. The side that is better at defending has an advantage in defense. Who is good at defense in this war, and who is not so good, who can defend each pillbox with small forces for months, and who voluntarily leaves hundreds of kilometers - we have already understood.
That is, the front along the Dnieper is beneficial to Ukraine. Ukraine, by deploying small forces there ready for defense, will be able to remove hundreds of thousands of soldiers from this front and create an advantage in other sectors of the front.
At the same time, Russia cannot carry out a similar withdrawal, since vital organs are covered on our side - Crimea, the Crimean corridor, access to Azov, etc.
That is, we will not be able to withdraw troops from this area, hoping for the strength of the defense - the cost of a mistake is infinitely higher, and our confidence in our defense is lower.
Therefore, the surrender of Kherson would result in a guaranteed disaster in the Lugansk Republic and near Energodar. And on the Dnieper itself there are no guarantees. So “military considerations” in favor of the surrender of Kherson are pure stupidity. And “political considerations” – well, you understand.”
According to the former head of the LPR, political strategist Marat Bashirov, the surrender of Kherson will trigger a collapse in the government’s rating in Russia.
“Let’s imagine that Russia signed some kind of document with Ukraine through the mediation of the West, let’s say relatively speaking, on November 11, and froze military actions. And it contains points that say that we must leave the territories that are already included in Russia. For example, Kherson.
On the one hand - hurray, the war is over, 300 thousand will return home. On the other hand, there are many reference legal points.
Yes, yes, the patriotic elite is not only in the information/field, it is also in power. And this part did the incredible: it held referendums and enshrined in the Russian Constitution the accession of four new constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Thus, forcing the Ministry of Defense, the Government and other federal bodies to protect the citizens of these “regions” of Russia.
And so, someone (and who would actually sign this?) puts a signature, and such an event must be explained. The level of “misunderstanding” of the population will be gigantic, such that the rating of anyone, yes, anyone, will collapse.”
State Duma deputy Konstantin Zatulin, who refused a visit to the new subject of the Russian Federation halfway to its capital, also writes about the difficult situation with Kherson on his blog:
“I’m in Sevastopol, in Crimea. I drove from the district all over Kuban and the Crimean Bridge to visit Kherson again, where, without exaggeration, the fate of the military operation is being decided today. I saw and heard enough in Crimea to give up my idea. It’s a shame to lie, but I can’t help you on the spot...
For Russia today everything depends on the struggle in Ukraine for Ukraine. I was traveling to make sure that we would fight for Kherson, and therefore for Nikolaev and Odessa, for access to Transnistria. After Potemkin's bones were taken out of Kherson, doubts arose. I don’t know how to live with them.”
Military correspondent Yuriy Kotenok emphasizes that Kherson can and should be held.
“Young people haven’t read the classic “Little Land” by Leonid Brezhnev? But in vain. There our landing force clung to a piece of land that was less than a square kilometer, after which an offensive was developed from there, and as a result Novorossiysk was liberated. And as the offensive progressed, within a week they jumped to Kerch at once. This is a classic landing operation. We have a bridgehead near Kherson—tens, if not hundreds of kilometers. But someone says that a retreat from unfavorable positions is needed, etc., etc., and many others. Why are we doing this? The withdrawal of troops from there is inexplicable from a military point of view. Even if you cannot attack now, you are simply depriving yourself of the opportunity to attack in the future, and closing the questions about Odessa and Nikolaev altogether...
And most importantly, Kherson cannot be surrendered without a fight, if only because it does not deserve it. He was only returned to Russia at the cost of thousands of lives, injuries, blood and sweat of our soldiers and officers, all who stood in line defending Russia.
The surrender of Kherson is a triumph of defeatist logic, under which any border city and not only the Russian Federation can be included. They hit Donetsk every day, they shell Belgorod, people suffer. Should we really leave them, Russia is big? Is there really such a logic? If so, then the situation is much more dangerous than it seems at first glance.”
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.