The announcement that the Russian army has withdrawn its forces from Kherson in southern Ukraine is stunning. Loss of the city is potentially a catastrophic military and political setback for Vladimir Putin in his ongoing war against Ukraine. It is also territory the Kremlin recently annexed.
Kherson is the only regional capital that Moscow has been able to capture in this war and was the first major Ukrainian city seized by Russian forces following the invasion in late February. A Russian withdrawal is not only a major embarrassment to Mr. Putin but also allows Ukraine to win back territory in the Zaporizhzhia region as well as southern Ukraine.
The city had a pre-war population of 280,000 and lies on the west side of the Dnipro River. The Ukrainian counteroffensive, ongoing in this area since September, had threatened to encircle the roughly 25,000 Russian troops that had defended it. Over the past several months Kyiv has used long-range artillery fire to cut Russian supply lines to Kherson as well as destroy bridges across the river. This has forced the Russians to depend on barges and boats to resupply their forces. Ultimately, senior Russian military leaders publicly acknowledged that it was impossible to resupply the city, making continued efforts to defend it futile. A successful withdrawal would allow them to preserve the combat power of experienced units. Some experts believe the Russians have been pulling these forces from Kherson for several weeks and replacing them with recently mobilized and poorly trained soldiers who were sacrificed to cover the withdrawal.
This is the third major military reversal for Russia in this war which is now in its ninth month. Russian military objectives at the onset of the conflict were to quickly capture the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv as well as its second-largest city, Kharkiv. This effort failed, and Russian forces suffered not only significant losses of men and equipment but also a humiliating retreat. Moscow then sought to secure Luhansk and Donetsk provinces that comprise the Donbas in southeastern Ukraine. A successful Ukrainian counteroffensive that began in September has frustrated this effort. Moscow also wanted to capture Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline and the vital port city of Odesa. With the loss of Kherson, this is no longer possible, and this may further jeopardize Russian control of the Crimea in future. Senior US military officials have also publicly said that Russia has now suffered over 100,000 casualties since this war began.
There had been numerous reports that the Russian military leadership had urged Putin to allow them to withdraw to avoid a potential military disaster since September. Intelligence reports suggest Putin had forbidden them to do so and ordered them to defend the city at all costs. In the past few weeks, the Russian-imposed civilian leadership left the city as well as most of the population. It is estimated that only 20,000 civilians remain. There had been further reports that Russian forces were constructing defensive positions throughout the city in preparation for a major urban battle.
Consequently, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy had warned that Russia might be feigning a withdrawal to draw Ukrainian forces into the city for a subsequent pitched battle. Some feared this could be like Ukraine’s deception in the early fall when it announced preparation for a counteroffensive around Kherson and then conducted an attack in the northeast near Kharkiv that was successful in forcing Russia to retreat from a sizable portion of the territory they had previously occupied. But these fears never materialized. Russian forces did loot the city and very likely left behind large numbers of landmines and boobytraps. Still, Zelenskyy appeared confident as he made an unannounced visit to Kherson shortly after Ukrainian forces arrived much to the consternation of Russian nationalist mil bloggers.
But the “Battle of Kherson” may be just the beginning as Kyiv appears poised to press its attacks on a demoralized Russian Army and destroy any remaining troops or equipment on the western side of the Dnipro River. They will also shift forces to reinforce their counteroffensive in the Donbas or launch new attacks against territory Russia occupies in Zaporizhzhia province. Furthermore, Ukrainian forces have captured substantial amounts of Russian military equipment and ammunition while Moscow will suffer a further decline of morale among its forces that are already suffering from massive casualties, poor training, insufficient resupply, and bad leadership.
The loss of Kherson also presents Putin with an immediate political challenge.
He must now explain this military defeat in his “special military technical operation” to the Russian people who are becoming increasingly skeptical and concerned about the ongoing conflict. This is further complicated by the fact that following a series of sham referendums Putin announced the formal annexation of Kherson province into the Russian Federation. Consequently, he will need to develop a narrative that explains why Moscow is now abandoning territory that he has claimed as part of the “Motherland” and that it is now “occupied” by the Ukrainians.
The announcement of the withdrawal was clearly orchestrated for public consumption and to minimize any blame for Putin. It occurred on Russian television with the commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, General Sergey Surovikin recommending to Defense Minister Shoigu that his troops “take up defensive positions along the left (eastern) bank of the Dnipro River.” Shoigu agreed and directed that all measures be taken to “ensure the safe transfer of personnel, weapons, and equipment”.
Russian state media immediately delivered a propaganda spin that described the retreat as the “Kherson maneuver” or a “regrouping.” They further portrayed the retreat as a temporary setback. Some of the Kremlin’s previous critics such as the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov or Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder of the Wagner Group, contributed to this effort. They quickly praised Surovikin as a “combat general”, and every effort was made to distance Putin from the announcement. He made no comment and was attending the 75th anniversary of the federal Medical-Biological Agency when the decision was made public.
But this “public relations” effort appears to have only been partially successful. Russian mil bloggers were outraged at the news of the withdrawal, and one described it as the greatest defeat the nation had suffered since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Alexander Dugin, the pro-war ideologist, publicly criticized Putin for his failure to “defend the country” and called him an “autocrat”.
Putin and his military commanders appear to believe that they can establish defensive positions on the eastern shore of the Dnipro River as winter approaches. They may also intensify the air campaign focused on Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure hoping that over time this will break the will of the Ukrainian people and create a second wave of refugees. This will place additional strains on Kyiv as well as the NATO countries bordering Ukraine.
Putin might even seek a cease-fire as winter approaches to provide a pause to reorganize his battered troops and complete the training of additional forces that have been mobilized. How the West responds will be critical. There does appear to be a disagreement between senior members of the Biden Administration on whether or not this is an opportune moment to press Ukraine to seek a diplomatic end to the conflict. Some European leaders might also welcome such an effort.
But Ukrainian determination to continue the war appears to have hardened, and they have little trust for Russia — which has effectively shredded past ceasefire agreements that were part of the Minsk agreement in 2014. A Ukrainian delegation will arrive in Washington soon to press the case for more support in order to maintain the momentum that this success demonstrates until all Ukrainian territory is liberated. Hopefully, the Biden administration reinvigorated by successful mid-term election results will agree.
History may be instructive. In October 1942 British forces defeated the German Army at the Battle of El Alamein which halted their advance towards Egypt and the Suez Canal. Prime Minister Winston Churchill provided the following remarks in the House of Commons, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” The Ukrainian victory in Kherson may be equally pivotal in this war.
