War in Ukraine: What does Russia’s withdrawal from the key Kherson region mean for the conflict?

Christopher Morris, University of Portsmouth

Russia has announced that it is withdrawing its troops from the city of Kherson. This is another failure of Putin’s campaign. The Black Sea port on the Dnieper is the only major city that Russia has managed to occupy and the administrative center of the Kherson region, which was one of four regions annexed by Russia in September. His apparent refusal would certainly have important consequences.

In the north and in the center of Ukraine, the conflict is becoming more and more static, although it does not lose its sharpness. The changing seasons make it difficult for both sides to move quickly as the weather worsens. On the front lines, ground forces will simply struggle to survive the drop in temperature.

Over the past few weeks, attention has been focused on the Kherson region in the expectation that it will be the last major battle before winter changes the nature of the conflict.

Now the commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, General Sergei Surovikin, has announced that Russian troops will withdraw from the city and make it across the Dnieper to the south. It was something of a surprise. There was talk that Russia was entrenched in the city, preparing for a major battle. Surovikin’s statement included a rare public admission of the inadequacy of the Russian forces: he cited a logistical problem with the delivery of supplies for the troops under his command as the reason for the withdrawal. This is naturally highly suspicious.

Urban war?

Retreating at this point makes some practical sense. Right now, Russia is mostly on the defensive and needs to choose its battles carefully. Kherson gives the Russians the opportunity to force the advancing Ukrainians into urban warfare, a costly form of combat that is often fatal to the attacking side. However, this will come at a terrible cost to the defending Russian forces, and Russia cannot currently afford to suffer losses of this magnitude.

There are some indications that the withdrawal may have been a hoax, an example of the Russian tradition of mixing politics and military action to deceive the enemy: this is the famous “camouflage” or war in disguise. By learning from the disastrous urban clashes in Chechnya, Russia may be trying to make Ukraine feel what they have experienced in the past. But if so, it looks like Ukrainian intelligence has already figured out the trick.

Be that as it may, this decision causes a split in Moscow. While some, including the influential head of the Wagner mercenary group Yevgeny Prigozhin, are willing to view the move as pragmatic, others, such as Chechen leader Kadyrov, who recently called for a “great jihad” against the people of Ukraine, are likely to be less tolerant. to the opposite.

This division speaks of the material and symbolic value of the city. The largest settlement captured during the Russian “special operation” is the center of industry and agriculture, as well as a port with access to both the Black Sea and the adjacent Dnieper. If Ukraine manages to return Kherson, it will be one step away from Crimea.

Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot afford another humiliation: the loss of the city would jeopardize his control of the illegally annexed Zaporozhye region. However, a costly fight would further deplete their already battered ground forces. After the recent disastrous offensive by elite Russian troops in the north, the military leadership may be taking steps to save their remaining experienced soldiers.

Next steps

Instead, in the coming months, Russian forces are likely to avoid the decisive confrontation formula by continuing the war in other ways, such as drone strikes on civilian infrastructure. In addition, they may bet on reducing NATO aid during the winter months, hoping that economic pressure and power shortages will force Ukraine’s supporters to refocus on their own population.

For their part, Ukraine’s military planners will be ready to continue the offensive. President Volodymyr Zelensky is also aware that the stalemate could deprive Western military support. Ukrainian leaders have consistently pledged to retake all occupied territories, including Crimea, which was annexed in 2014.

However, success in Kherson is a test of a different kind. While the United States and other key allies have supported Ukraine so far, it remains to be seen whether that commitment extends to the return of territory Russia claims it previously annexed. A much larger breakthrough would make the return of Crimea a real possibility, and there is speculation about Russia’s next move, if possible, with fears it could trigger a nuclear response. Fear of such a reaction could force Ukraine’s supporters to reconsider their options.

In the short term, the flow of support is likely to continue, but the picture is more complex in the long term. In the US, a significant portion of the population believes that too much aid is being sent abroad. Given the position of the Republican Party on this issue, some, including Russian leaders, have suggested that the US midterm elections will be a turning point. Of course, US President Joe Biden also had to say no to members of his own party, who made it clear they preferred a negotiated solution.

American presidents make mistakes, of course, but after the disastrous outcome of the US refusal to support the previous government in Afghanistan, expecting the same mistake to be made twice in the same administration is wishful thinking.

Regardless of what happens south of Kherson, Ukraine can probably count on an influx of weapons and support for some time to come.

Christopher Morris, Fellow, School of Strategy, Marketing and Innovation, University of Portsmouth

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original.