The Ukrainian army had launched a counter-offensive in this region in the summer. By avoiding a new rout, Moscow tries to minimize the scope of this withdrawal.
by Benoît Vitkine (Moscow, correspondent), Cédric Pietéturunga, Emmanuel Grynszpan and Faustine Vincent
It was at the turn of a simple military point of situation that the Russian authorities announced, Wednesday, November 9, nothing less than the abandonment of what they consider as one of their regional capitals. Unable to resist Ukrainian military pressure, the Russian army indicated that it was withdrawn from the city of Kherson and an area adjoining some 4,800 km 2 sup>, to regroup on the Left bank of the Dniepr, sheltered from the wide river which cuts Ukraine in two.
The reverse is immense, as much military as political. Kherson was the only capital of captured oblast – almost without fighting – by Moscow during his March offensive. It was to serve as a support point for a subsequent advance towards Odessa and the Transnistria. From now on, it is the ability of the Russian army to carry out such evacuation of its troops, with barges and floating bridges, which is at stake.
Since September 30 and the holding of a puppet referendum, the city had gained the rank of administrative center of one of the eighty-nine subjects of the Russian Federation. Vladimir Putin had then promised to defend it “by all means”. Before that, the leader of the presidential party, Andreï Tourtchak, assured that “Russia is there forever”, taking up the mantra displayed on dozens of giant panels installed in the occupied territories of Ukraine.
Wednesday, without going so far as to evoke a “gesture of good will”, as during the pensions of kyiv and Chernihiv, the same Toutchak evoked a simple “maneuver” intended to “defend the population”.
Important losses
As striking as the reverse is the care put to hide it. The announcement of Kherson’s withdrawal was almost drowned in a long military briefing broadcast by army television. The commander -in -chief of the “special military operation”, General Sergei Sourovikine, assures that “the situation is stable all over the front”. Then, he reports the “success” recorded by Moscow in the Donetsk region. In that of Kherson, he explains, “we successfully resist the assaults of the enemy”, which undergoes “immense losses”.
Without transition, General Sourovikine continues: “We are going to preserve the life of our soldiers and the combat capacity of our units. Holding them on the right bank is useless.” “I agree with your conclusions And your proposals, replied the Minister of Defense, Sergei Choigou. Proceed with the withdrawal of the troops. “
If there is a share of truth in these declarations, it is that the stake for Moscow is indeed to avoid a disaster comparable to the stampede observed in August in the Kharkiv region, which had ended in loss of important material and men. The counterattack on Kherson, less spectacular, had been launched at the same time with partial or total destruction, thanks in particular to the Multiple Himars launchers provided by Westerners, of the three bridges connecting the two banks of the river.
You have 67.25% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.