Thursday, November 10, 2022

Why did Russian leaders Order Troops Withdrawal from Kherson City?

    Thursday, November 10, 2022   No comments

 Although the recent announcement that Russian forces will be pulling out of parts of Kherson region, mainly parts of the Oblast on the right-side banks of the Dnipro River, the move could signal a strategic adjustment. The justifications and explanations by military generals who developed the plan and those involved indirectly may shed some light about their thinking that could determine the military map of Ukraine for months or perhaps years to come.

 

1. Surovikin reports to Shoigu:

 ▪️ The situation in the area of   the special operation has been generally stabilized, the combat capabilities of the joint group and forces have increased significantly, the combat strength has been increased at the expense of the mobilized, reserves have been created;

▪️ Russian troops have resumed offensive operations in certain areas;

▪️ Street fighting is underway on the eastern outskirts of Artemovsk;

▪️ And the situation in the Kherson direction: we successfully resist all enemy offensive attempts;

▪️ Our losses are 7-8 times less than those of the enemy;

▪️ In the area of the Vremevsky ledge, the units pushed the enemy back and occupied the dominant heights in the depths of his defense;

▪️ The city of Kherson and adjacent settlements cannot be supplied and function; and

▪️ Everyone in the Kherson region, and this is more than 115 thousand people, left the area of   hostilities.

 

2. Reactions from Russia:


2.1. Kadyrov, presdient of the Muslim-majority Chechen Republic, who is a strong supporter of the operation and whose troops are active in the war front put out this statement:


Kherson is a very difficult area without the possibility of a stable regular supply of ammunition and the formation of a strong, reliable rear. In this difficult situation, the general acted wisely and farsightedly - he evacuated the civilian population and ordered a regrouping.

there is no need to talk about the "surrender" of Kherson. "Surrender" together with the fighters.  Surovikin protects the soldier and takes a more advantageous strategic position - convenient, safe. Everyone knew from the very first days of the special operation that Kherson was a difficult combat territory. The soldiers of my units also reported that it was very difficult to fight in this area. Yes, it can be kept, it is possible to organize at least some supply of ammunition, but the cost will be numerous human lives.

I believe that Surovikin acted like a real military general, not afraid of criticism. Thank you, Vladimirovich, for taking care of the guys! And we will not stop hitting the enemy and we will not get tired.

 

2.2. The owner of PMC "Wagner", Prigozhin, who previously criticized the command of the Russian army for retreating from Liman, today supported the decision to leave Kherson. He said:

The decision to withdraw troops from the right bank of the Dnieper is not an easy one, but it speaks of the readiness of the command to take responsibility for the lives of soldiers. The withdrawal of troops with minimal losses is Surovikin’s achievement, which does not do honor to Russian weapons, but emphasizes the personal qualities of the commander, who acted like a man who is not afraid of responsibility.

3. Analysis:


The more likely strategic goals that motivated this move:

Russian leaders seem to now realize that Ukrainian military will not stop fighting and that the conflict is now hardened. It is a situation similar to the one in Syrian, which Russian military is very familiar: The two sides are determined to fight to the end, given the support of regional and world powers to opposing side, here Ukraine. Therefore, Russian leaders are building the infrastructure for a war that could last for 10 to 15 years. This means, they must use the geography to set long-term defensive positions, which will allow them to continue to degrade the capability of the other side using long distance weapons.

By moving troops across the Dnipro River, Russia may appear to have given up some territories. However, the move will free some troops and resources to regain territories on the left side of Iskil River in the northeast. The use of rivers and lakes as natural defensive lines, the Russian military will position itself for long conflict in which they must reduce the losses of human assets. The territory they lost in the south (1) will be replaced by territory in the east (2), mostly likely during  a spring offensive that will establish the two major rivers as a more defensible border in the long run.

The increased production of precision weapons and versatile drones fits in this long-term strategy, one which will cause more economic and military damage to the Ukrainian side, especially if the supply of weapons from the US and EU slows down or stops altogether.


Control map now:



 

 

Assistants

About Assistants

Islamic Societies Review Editors

Previous
Next Post
No comments:
Write comments


Most popular articles


ISR +


Frequently Used Labels and Topics

A Week in Review Academic Integrity Adana Agreement afghanistan Africa al-Azhar Algeria All Apartheid apostasy Arab Spring Armenia Arts and Entertainment Asia Bangladesh Brazil BRICS Brotherhood CAF Canada Caspian Sea Chechnya China CIA Civil society colonialism communism Conflict Constitutionalism Contras Corruption Coups Crimea Crimes against humanity Democracy Despotism Diplomacy Dissent Dmitry Medvedev Economics and Finance Economy Education and Communication Egypt Elections energy environment Erdogan Europe Events FIFA FIFA World Cup FIFA World Cup Qatar 2020 Food Football France freedom of speech Gaza GCC GDP Genocide geopolitics Germany Global Security Globalism globalization Greece Grozny Conference Hamas Health hijab History and Civilizations Human Rights Huquq Ideas IGOs Immigration Imperialism Imperialismm india Indonesia Instrumentalized Human Rights Inter International Affairs International Law Iran IranDeal Iraq ISIL Islam in America Islam in China Islam in Europe Islam in Russia Islam Today Islamic economics Islamic law Islamic Societies Islamism Islamophobia Jordan Journalism Khamenei Kurdistan Law and Society Lebanon Libya Majoritarianism Malaysia mass killings Media Media Bias Middle East Military Affairs Morocco Muslim Ban Muslim Women and Leadership Muslims Muslims in Europe Muslims Today Nationalism NATO Nelson Mandela Nicaragua Nigeria North America North Korea Nuclear Deal Nusra OPEC+ Pakistan Palestine Poland Politics and Government Populism Poverty Propaganda Prophet Muhammad Protests Public Health Putin Qatar Quran Racism Raisi Regime Change religion and conflict Religion and Culture Religion and Politics religion and society Resistance Rohingya Genocide Russia Salafism Sanctions Saudi Arabia Science and Technology SCO Sectarianism security sharia Sharia-compliant financial products Shia Soccer socialism Southwest Asia and North Africa Space War Sports Sports and Politics Supremacy SWANA Syria terrorism Tourism transportation Tunisia Turkey Turkiye U.S. Foreign Policy UAE uk ukraine UN United States Uprisings US Foreign Policy USA Volga Bulgaria wahhabism War and Peace War Crimes West Western Civilization Western Sahara WMDs women rights World and Communities Yemen Zionism

Search for old news

Find Articles by year, month hierarchy

_______________________________________________

Copyright © Islamic Societies Review. All rights reserved.