“Proceed with the withdrawal of the troops.” The statement by Sergei Shoigu, Russian Defense Minister, created a sensation. The Russian general staff began its withdrawal from the Kherson region on Thursday, November 10, in order to liberate the right bank of the Dnipro.
>> War in Ukraine: follow the latest information in our live
The Ukrainian army, for its part, claims to have regained possession of the locality of Snihourivka, 50 km north of the regional capital, and eleven other localities – a little over 260 square km. How to interpret these announcements? Interview with geopolitical analyst Ulrich Bounat.
Franceinfo: Is the Russian decision to withdraw from Kherson surprising?
Ulrich Bounat: This withdrawal was expected but the timing and the way of announcing it still remained to be defined. In the long term, indeed, the position on the western bank of the Dnipro was not tenable. The three bridges supplying the Russian forces had become impassable. There was a barge system, but it was relatively random. The Ukrainian advance was slow, yes, but it was steady and kept the Russian forces under pressure. From a military point of view, it was obvious that these troops were going to withdraw.
What can we learn from this announcement made during an exchange between Minister Shoigu and General Surovikin?
This announcement was staged, but what is striking is the absence of Vladimir Putin, who does not wish to be associated with this decision. From a Russian point of view, it is the abandonment of a national territory. This decision could be devastating in Russia. The discussion between Shoigu and Surovikin is quite long, yet the part on Kherson occupies only fifteen or twenty seconds, in order to minimize the media impact of this measure.
General Surovikin, moreover, says in the preamble that all is well on the whole front. Everything is done to minimize this withdrawal, under cover of improbable justifications, such as humanitarian reasons. It is not insignificant that this negative message was carried by this character, with a harsh and violent reputation. This is also highlighted by the Russian media: if he himself is led to make such announcements, it is because he is constrained and forced by the context.
Strategically, what can be the short-term consequences?
The withdrawal of Russian forces is likely to be fairly quick, but that doesn’t mean things will be easy. For the Russians, we are talking about 10,000 or even 20,000 soldiers still present on the western bank. Organizing the crossing of a river as wide as the Dnipro, under pressure from Ukrainian artillery, will necessarily be complex. There is therefore a real question mark: will Russia be able to manage this withdrawal from a logistical point of view?
It still seems better organized than the previous ones. Yesterday, several bridges were blown up, almost successively, in the Kherson area, in order to protect the withdrawal of Russian forces and hinder the Ukrainian advance. In addition, artillery positions were reinforced on the eastern bank of the Dnipro to cover this operation. But the heart of the matter, crossing the Dnipro, remains a challenge. This will be a good indicator of the level of Russian forces. The most important thing for the Kremlin is now to safeguard the land corridor between Crimea and Russia.
And for the Ukrainian forces?
I don’t think we’re going to see a great rapid advance towards Kherson. The Russian withdrawal was thought out and many works of art were destroyed. Not to mention that some things are going to be trapped and mined in the city. The Ukrainian forces will therefore have to advance with measured steps. It is also possible that Russian units will remain behind to undermine this advance, although this is less likely. In summary, the recapture of Kherson will not be immediate, especially since the Russian artillery is still positioned on the eastern bank.
On the other hand, the Ukrainian forces will still maintain the pressure to complicate the Russian withdrawal and prevent these troops from regenerating quickly. General Sourovikine, in fact, mentioned the possibility of training and reforming these troops and sending them to other areas of the front, such as the Donbass. Beyond the mobilized men who came to plug the breaches, there are experienced men among these numbers.
Can we imagine a scenario where Russian forces return to Kherson?
In the short term, no. In the medium term, it is also unlikely. This departure from Kherson definitively buries any recovery of the city, and a fortiori of Mykholaïv and Odessa. From a political point of view, Vladimir Putin has not given up on the idea of subjugating all of Ukraine, one way or another. But from a military point of view, it will be complicated to revert the Dnipro to an invasion force. The capture of Kherson by the Russians, on the other hand, had been due in part to the betrayal of those responsible for defending the city.
There is probably a theory, on the Russian side, which consists in saying: we try to limit the losses during the winter, in order possibly, once we have trained our 300,000 soldiers, to try to regain the initiative in the spring. But if necessary, it will probably be more in the Donbass, or towards Kharkiv.
Why is kyiv so wary of these announcements?
Very often, since the beginning of the war, when Russia says something, it is the opposite which occurs. The Ukrainians are therefore skeptical of anything that comes from the Kremlin. From a military point of view, however, it is clear that all the conditions for a withdrawal have been put in place. There is probably a posture on the part of kyiv, which consists in accentuating a message of caution, because the Ukrainians are well aware that the takeover of Kherson will not happen overnight. It’s a way of tempering the heat, and not declaring victory too quickly.
What is the significance of this withdrawal on the scale of the war?
It was the main city occupied by the Russians and it is therefore a very good success for the Ukrainian army – even more, perhaps, than that obtained in the Kharkiv region. From a military point of view, we will nevertheless return to a more or less stable zone, with a natural barrier that is difficult to cross. This will not totally change the fate of this war, since the area was already considered lost in the long term by the Russians. The fact remains that the symbolism is extremely powerful.
Moreover, the front is getting closer to the Crimea. After the attack on the bridge and the attack on the Sevastopol base, this withdrawal added a little more pressure on the annexed province, and revived the debates around its status. It also highlights the Kremlin’s nuclear bluff around the inviolability of what it considers its territory. Finally, it reinforces the Ukrainian discourse on the possibility of obtaining victories, and therefore its ability to obtain Western weapons.