Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part IV
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:02 pm
Russia announces its withdrawal from the city of Kherson
POSTED BY @NSANZO ⋅ 10/11/2022
In the next few hours, Ukraine will recover the city of Kherson, the only Ukrainian regional capital beyond Donbass until now under Russian control. Yesterday, with a speech riddled with contradictions, the Defense Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Shoigu, gave the order to withdraw Russian troops from the right bank of the Dnieper to General Surovikin. With his words, Shoigu, not long ago one of the main candidates to succeed Vladimir Putin in the presidency at the end of his mandate, wanted to highlight that Russia has already evacuated 115,000 residents of the right bank, in what is the main success of the Russian performance in recent weeks. The minister also tried to combine a speech in which he stated that the front in the Kherson area has been stabilized with the idea that its defense is not possible. Until that moment, official Russian communications had stated that Russia continued to defeat every Ukrainian attempt to penetrate its lines. Just minutes after the confirmation of what was already an open secret, Ukraine raised its flag in a first area of Snigirovka, where the Ukrainian attacks were supposedly being repelled.
The latest events cannot be considered a surprise but rather the logical conclusion to a series of problems that date back months. Last February, the Russian advance in the southern zone was rapid. At that time, in an accumulation of defections and decisions aware of the need to leave areas where the Ukrainian Armed Forces were in inferiority against a Russian Army whose shortcomings had not been revealed, Ukraine correctly chose to prioritize the defense of his capital. While Ukraine succeeded in halting the Russian advance on the suburbs of kyiv and preventing the city from being besieged, thus thwarting Russian plans to force the Ukrainian government to agree to a deal on Moscow's terms, Russian troops were rapidly advancing towards Mariupol and towards Kherson.
However, the success in preventing the siege of kyiv gave Ukraine credibility with its partners, who would quickly begin the flow of military and financial assistance, and a certain strength in negotiations even in the toughest moments. In the period between the first and second meetings between the Russian and Ukrainian representatives, one of the Ukrainian negotiators was killed by the SBU in a shootout. While military intelligence claimed that he had died a hero, the SBU called him a traitor to Ukraine. But despite the military defeats in the south and the evident difficulties in the capital, the kyiv government was able to maintain unity and the refusal to make territorial concessions. With the Ukrainian refusal to accept the terms proposed by Moscow, involving Russian withdrawal from all areas of Ukraine beyond Donbass and Crimea, Russia was forced to modify its plans and recalibrate its objectives. If at any time it was, thespecial military operation had already turned into an open war.
In the six months since, Russia, which has futilely clung to the rhetoric and naive goals of the special military operation,It has tried to maintain a front in which its troops have been overextended and in which they have not been able to advance or, what has been more serious, to consolidate a serious defense capable of responding to Ukrainian attacks. Ukraine, which withstood the first Russian onslaught with its own weapons and its own soldiers and was able to use the negotiation process to delay any Russian advance on cities like Nikolaev, managed to buy enough time to start receiving large amounts of of armament. In March, without military victories to boast of, he presented as successes of his troops the capture of positions in the kyiv and Chernigov regions abandoned by Russian troops,
In September, after a first offensive on Kherson that ended with hospitals in Nikolaev overwhelmed by Ukrainian soldiers, kyiv achieved its greatest military success on the battlefield with the victory over Russian troops in Kharkov. While in Moscow, outside of reality, the reconstruction of the Saur Mogila monument in the DPR was celebrated with fireworks, the Ukrainian troops expelled the Russians from Balakleya and forced a hasty withdrawal from such important towns as Kupiansk and Izium.
Behind Oskol's back, logistics complicated the defense of the area. This was how the rapid abandonment of an area in which the representative of United Russia had personally affirmed to the population that Russia had come to stay forever was explained. This precedent made the defense of Kherson unlikely, behind a much more important river, the Dnieper. The changes made in these weeks, fundamentally the appointment of General Surovikin as head of the troops and the start of attacks against critical infrastructure in Ukraine, have bought time to, according to information on the ground, relatively stabilize the Lugansk front. Ukraine has not managed to repeat the Kharkov lightning offensive there and the Russian and Republican troops have managed, for the time being,
On the Kherson front, the last few weeks have shown a change in Russian tactics, which has started from accepting reality beyond a discourse of strength that has long since failed to correspond to reality. In his first public appearance since his appointment, General Surovikin made clear the plight of troops on the right bank of the Dnieper River, whose bridges have been bombed by Ukraine for months, further complicating already difficult logistics. Surovikin did not rule out making "difficult decisions". Russia began the evacuation of the population from the right bank of the Dnieper and later from part of the left bank, at risk of being flooded in the event of an explosion of the Kajovka reservoir. There was already talk of the only two possibilities: the evacuation of the population to ensure the defense of the city of Kherson without risking thousands of lives or withdrawal. This new defeat occurs again when there is no good news in any part of the front. Since July, Russia has been trying to attack, so far without success, the city of Artyomovsk and the Seversk-Soledar line. The great destruction is known, but not the number of casualties that is accumulating in this failed frontal assault strategy. The retreat from Kherson sheds light on the hasty and disastrous Pavlovka-Ugledar offensive, which, as Alexander Khodakovsky foretold, could not succeed without a larger operation in Ugledar. It is likely that Russia sought a victory, however temporary,
Yesterday's speech by Minister Shoigu, together with the transfer of the Kherson regional administration to Genichesk, the city in the Kherson region closest to Crimea, confirmed the Russian withdrawal. A withdrawal that will not be easy and in which there have already been victims. Moscow-appointed deputy governor of Kherson, Kiril Stremousov, died yesterday in a traffic accident in the outskirts of Genichesk, the last city on mainland Ukraine before the move to Crimea.
In recent days, as a Russian withdrawal from Kherson has become more likely, several media have mentioned the existence of negotiations between Russia and the United States and have linked the visit to kyiv of Andrew Sullivan, US national security adviser, to the restart of diplomacy. This speech raised the recovery of Kherson as a prerequisite. From there, with the Dnieper as a border, a ceasefire could be consolidated in a situation in which Ukraine would not give up the southern territories, would continue to receive weapons from its partners and electricity from the Energodar nuclear power plant, under Russian control. . Russia, which yesterday expressed its willingness to negotiate with Ukraine "taking into account the realities on the ground", would be forced to reach an agreement with serious reminiscences of the Minsk agreement, signed by Ukraine at its weakest point. As then, it is unlikely that an agreement under these conditions could be respected. Russia is now in its most vulnerable position, while Ukraine publicly and repeatedly reaffirms that its negotiation demands have not changed and will only accept Russian withdrawal from all Ukrainian territories along the borders inherited from the Soviet Union in 1991.
Ukraine refuses even to believe in the Russian withdrawal and continues to speak of a Russian ploy to invite the Armed Forces of Ukraine into a death trap in the city of Kherson. Nothing indicates that this will be the case, quite the opposite: Russia seems to have accepted the impossible of defending those positions and chooses to withdraw instead of condemning Kherson to a scenario similar to that of Mariupol. In the months in which it has enjoyed control over the area, the Russian Federation has failed to expand the security zone, exposing Kherson and the bridges linking the city with the Left Bank to Ukrainian artillery, nor has it managed to consolidate a viable defense in the city and surrounding areas.
In addition to the political risks involved in withdrawing from a city that Moscow proclaimed Russian two months ago, the withdrawal entails significant military dangers. Once Kherson is controlled, which Ukraine will receive without a large part of the pro-Russian population, which fled weeks ago, kyiv will have the ability to allocate its reserves to other areas of the front. The direction towards Melitopol or Berdyansk, trying to split the Russian territory in two in the south, could be the most dangerous for Russia, which will have to determine which is the front line that it considers politically and militarily capable of defending.
Until now, Russia has explained its military failures based on three ideas: the numerical superiority of kyiv; foreign support, which has made Moscow try to present the conflict as a confrontation against the whole of NATO and not against Ukraine, and the alleged large presence of foreign mercenaries (especially Poles). To this he has always added, generally without evidence, that Ukraine is suffering an enormous number of casualties, a strategy that is nothing more than the repetition of the Ukrainian discourse when it was its troops that were in retreat. In defeat, Russia has persistently found an explanation. However, so far, it has not always been able to find a solution.
https://slavyangrad.es/2022/11/10/rusia ... more-25909
Google Translator
**************
The Pullout From Kherson
The Russian command decided to remove its troops in the Kherson region from the left bank of the Dnieper.
Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu did not look happy when he gave the order. He knows that another such setback will cost him his job.
This move looks bad.
That alone will have consequences. The Ukrainians, the Biden administration and the European supporter of Ukraine will be emboldened by this. The support in Russia for the war will shrink. Some people in Russia will start to call for President Putin's head. There is no danger though that they will get it.
This move is operationally sound.
From the military point of view there is little chance to withstand a serious attack in the region as the resupply across the Dnieper river is very difficult and can not be guaranteed. Moreover the possible breach of the Dnieper river dams would make any resupply impossible for at least a week or even longer. That would be enough time for the Ukrainians to slaughter whatever number of Russian troops were left behind.
Strategically the move is bad.
It closes for now the possibility of moving into Nikolaev (Mykolaiv) and further towards Odessa. This could have and should have been done earlier. But the Russian commanded did not commit sufficient forces for that fight. There were also sound reason for not doing that. Now it is too late to criticize those decisions.
It is quite possible that, behind the scene, a deal has been made over this. If one was made we are unlikely to learn of it anytime soon.
The priorities now should be to get the soldiers and equipment out of the area. It will require intense air defense coverage to prevent the close down of ferry points by Ukrainian artillery. There is no reason to make it easy for the Ukraine to regain the area. Until the evacuation is done any significant Ukrainian move into the area should be responded to with effective artillery fire.
Soon the Ukrainian army will start to move troops prepared for an attack in Kherson to other front lines. Russia must likewise move its troops to reinforce its positions elsewhere.
Morale requires that the next Russian move has to be big push with strategic significance. The concept of deep battle and deep operations should be reapplied. Historically it has nearly always worked to Russia's advantage.
But the big push does not need to be solely militarily. A further significant damage of Ukraine's economy via its electricity network is an additional option. To severely interdict its supply lines from the west is another one.
We need to look at the big picture.
The world is moving away from a unilateral 'western' led model towards a new multilateral future. By waging war in Ukraine Russia initiated and accelerated this historic change. In sight of that the pullback from Kherson is just a minor tactical loss. It can and likely will be rectified by moves happening elsewhere.
Posted by b on November 10, 2022 at 10:42 UTC | Permalink
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/11/t ... l#comments
***************
Russian Kherson Withdrawal: Trap? Or Necessary Chess Move?
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on NOVEMBER 9, 2022
Russia’s Ministry of Defense has announced the withdrawal of Russian forces from Kherson city to the east bank of the Dnieper River.
This was alluded to 3 weeks ago by General Sergey Surovikin and for the purpose of weathering Ukraine’s all-or-nothing offensive while preserving Russian manpower and equipment.
While Russian forces have successfully defended the city until now, even the slightest possibility of Ukrainian forces overwhelming Russian troops on the wrong side of the river would result in a defeat of historic proportions.
Russia has now eliminated that possibility.
Meanwhile, Russian forces continue dismantling Ukraine’s national power grid, its air defense network, and what remains of its overstretched forces.
Ukraine fights for today’s headlines, Russia is fighting to win the long war.
References:
The New Atlas – Russian General Surovikin Speaks, Kherson Battle Looms, Drone/Missiles Strikes Continue (October 19, 2022): https://youtu.be/dH-0e4WA8Pc?t=760
RT – Russia to pull troops out of frontline city of Kherson – MOD: https://www.rt.com/russia/565869-russ…
Al Jazeera – Ukrainian official says talk of Russian withdrawal from Kherson is premature (scroll down): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/livebl…
Mikhailo Podolyak (Twitter) – reaction to Russian MOD announcement: https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status…
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/11/ ... hess-move/
Ukraine War: No End in View
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on NOVEMBER 9, 2022
M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
The US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s meetings with Ukrainian leaders, including President Vladimir Zelensky, in Kiev has created a lot of confusion and misperceptions. One one side, the White House maintains that the trip aimed “to underscore the United States’ steadfast support to Ukraine and its people.” The readout stated that Sullivan also affirmed “the continued provision of economic and humanitarian assistance, as well as ongoing efforts with partners to hold Russia accountable for its aggression.”
However, unnamed US officials gave the spin that Sullivan’s real mission was to “nudge” Zelensky to negotiate with Moscow and urge that “Kyiv must show its willingness to end the war reasonably and peacefully.” Politico later reported that Zelensky indeed heeded Sullivan’s “soft nudging”. The US media also reported that the US officials have been nudging the Ukrainians for sometime.
The Washington Post reported last week that the Biden administration privately encouraged Ukrainian officials to show they are willing to engage in dialogue with Russia, in an acknowledgment of the growing frustration in the US and some of its allies at the cost and duration of the war. But, apparently, the Ukrainians pushed back.
Sullivan also added some spice to the media speculation by claiming on Monday that the US has channels to communicate with Russia at senior levels. The Wall Street Journal had earlier reported, citing unnamed US and Western officials, that Sullivan had allegedly held a series of confidential meetings recently with Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov and Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev on the conflict in Ukraine. (Moscow has not reacted to these reports.)
The heart of the matter is that Sullivan has been on a PR exercise in the run-up to the midterms in the US (November 8) in a concerted strategy aimed at countering the growing criticism among the Democrats and Republicans that the Biden Administration is avoiding the diplomatic track to try to end the war in Ukraine. In fact, all indications are that the Biden Administration is preparing for the long haul in Ukraine.
Stars and Stripes reported on Wednesday that a three-star general will lead a new Army headquarters in Germany called the Security Assistance Group Ukraine, or SAGU, that will include about 300 US service members responsible for coordinating security assistance for Ukraine. On Sunday, The New York Times had reported that Lt. Gen. Antonio Aguto Jr., head of the First US Army headquarters at Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois, was a leading candidate for the new job.
The SAGU will be based out of US Army Europe and Africa headquarters in Wiesbaden. Sabrina Singh, the deputy Pentagon press secretary, told reporters the new command will “ensure we are postured to continue supporting Ukraine over the long term.” She added the US remains “committed to Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
It is improbable that Moscow has fallen for Sullivan’s dissimulation. There is reason to believe that Sullivan who is a thoroughbred neocon from the Clinton clan would only have urged Zelensky to expedite the planned Ukrainian offensive on Kherson, which has been in the limelight. The Biden Administration is badly in need of a success story from Ukraine as the newly-elected Congress convenes in January with a likely Republican Party majority in the House of Representatives.
No doubt, the Russians are taking the Ukrainian offensive in Kherson seriously. In a stunning announcement in Moscow on Wednesday, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu ordered a troop pullout from the western side of the Dnieper River in the Kherson Region. The fact that the Kremlin is risking criticism from the Russian public opinion for ordering such a retreat (from a region that is actually an integral part of Russia) underscores the gravity of the Ukrainian military threat. Zelensky is forcing Moscow to literally eat its words about the “demilitarisation” of Ukraine!
Zelensky continues to be in a belligerent mood. On Monday, Zelensky did make a peace offer but with five conditions for a settlement:
*Restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity;
*Russia respecting UN Charter on sovereignty and territorial integrity;
*Russia paying off all war reparations;
*Punishing each war criminal; and,
*Guarantees that such an invasion and atrocities will not happen again.
The only “concession” Zelensky made is that he didn’t mention his earlier precondition that President Vladimir Putin should relinquish office before any negotiations.
There is no end in view for the war in Ukraine. By the way, although the midterm elections are typically the point in a US presidential cycle where one expects to see top Cabinet members begin to turn over, there is no sign of that happening to Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin.
Austin, 69, being a critical voice in the Ukraine conflict, who mobilised billions of dollars worth of military aid from around the world for Kiev, Biden anticipates that the war effort may only become more entrenched and this is not the time to change up the top ranks of the Pentagon.
Indeed, the ground situation shows that the ongoing Russian operations in the areas of Ugledar and Bakhmut in Donetsk have run into strong resistance from Ukrainian forces, contrary to the Russian narrative Kiev’s military is a demoralised lot.
In particular, the advance of the Russians around Ugledar got stuck in the village of Pavlovka, located on the important crossroads, and in a fierce battle three days ago, reportedly, hundreds of Russian soldiers were killed. Putin’s decision to retreat in Kherson is probably meant to avoid a similar fate, as the Russians are experiencing logistical difficulties to supply their forces on the western side of Dnieper river.
Of course, this seamy picture is not the whole picture insofar as the phase of regrouping and resupplying following the Russian mobilisation is still a work in progress and the ongoing fighting in Donbass and Kherson is at the tactical level and does not involve any large movements of troops.
Equally, the intensive Russian strikes on Ukrainian depots, command centres and artillery and air-defence systems plus the destruction of Ukraine’s military-industrial facilities and energy system are yet to impact Kiev’s capacity to wage the war.
To be sure, the situation on the front lines in Kherson region remains extremely tense. The Ukrainian forces are on the prowl probing the Russian defence line incessantly to break through to capture the city of Kherson. A large-scale offensive by the Ukrainian forces on Kherson is to be expected any day. So far, Russian are holding their positions, repelling the ongoing Ukrainian attacks and fortifying their defences.
From Kherson, Ukrainian artillery can threaten Crimea. In the prognosis of Moscow’s close ally, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, “Challenging times are ahead of us. Next winter will be even harsher than this one because we’re facing the Battle of Stalingrad, the decisive battle in the conflict in Ukraine, the battle for Kherson.” He predicted that both sides are likely to deploy thousands of tanks, aircraft and artillery pieces in the struggle for the key city.
Vucic said, “The West thinks it’ll be able to ruin Russia that way, while Russia believes it’ll be able to defend what it secured at the start of the war and bring it to an end.”
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/11/ ... d-in-view/
Short shelf life, huh?
The Ukrainian Conflict and the Nuclear Threat
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on NOVEMBER 9, 2022
Oleg Pavlov
In the last few months the USA and its European allies (or de facto satellites), and US-controlled media, have been persistently and even obsessively speculating about Russia’s alleged plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict.
One of the most recent of these provocations was a story published in Britain’s Daily Mail, which claimed that Russian has already chose the target for a nuclear strike. The article cites a recent conversation between the Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron. The French President was made nervous by statements made by Vladimir Putin, which he saw as a threat aimed at Ukraine.
Although in actual fact the Russian President’s words mean quite the opposite: as he has said on more than one occasion, and not only to Emmanuel Macron, the USA is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons, and that in doing so it set a precedent. Russia has also stressed a number of times that there are no political or military reasons why it should use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The circumstances in which Russian could use nuclear weapons are comprehensively listed in a document issued on June 20, 2020, the Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence. That document clearly states that Russia considers nuclear weapons “exclusively as a means of deterrence, their use being an extreme and compelled measure”. It also states that in the event of a military conflict, Russia’s policy provides for the termination of military actions on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation.
The West has sought to relate the above passages to the war in Ukraine, taking no account either of the very limited circumstances in which Russia could use nuclear weapons or of the undertaking made by Russia and the other nuclear powers in the UN Security Council in a special statement issued on January 3, 2022. In that statement, issued before the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, the five members of the UN Security Council stressed that they “consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities”. The statement goes on to stress that “nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war”. In the document the signatories expressly declare that none of their nuclear weapons are targeted at each other or at any other State.
That could hardly be expressed any more clearly. The Russian government has also issued statements affirming this principle, as has the Chinese government, not least during the visit by the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to China, so why, one may ask, is the West persistently and stubbornly promoting nuclear scare stories.
The answer to that question may not be quite as simple as it might appear at first sight. Firstly, no-one in the West has forgotten the speech made by the Ukrainian President, Volodymir Zelensky, in the 58th Munich Security Conference, in which he directly stated that if the guarantors of the Budapest Memorandum did not agree to consultations and Ukraine was not offered any security guarantees, then Ukraine would have every right “to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all package decisions of 1994 have been put under question”. In other words, on February 20 this year, before the beginning of Russia’s special military operation, Ukraine raised the issue of relinquishing its nuclear-free status. It is therefore understandable that Russia was concerned that Ukraine might engage in secret operations to restore its nuclear potential in some way, possibly by making a so-called dirty nuclear bomb which could be used in a false flag operation as a pretext for accusing Russia of breaching its commitment in the UN Security Council statement issued on January 3.
Secondly, while they vary in content, the continuous scare stories about Russia’s alleged plans to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine serve as a cover enabling politicians and the media to probe Moscow’s intentions in relation to the conflict in Ukraine. Russia is continually being forced to deny baseless and far-fetched accusations on its alleged plans to use weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that Moscow is always having to justify itself gives other countries the mistaken impression that it is hiding something and has something up its sleeve. Ironically, it is widely known that after the end of the Second World War the Western powers, especially Britain, drew up detailed potential plans to attack the USSR using nuclear weapons (the now declassified Dropshot and Unthinkable plans).
And now, the unfounded rumors about Russia’s plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine are being used as a smokescreen to enable the further modernization of the USA’s nuclear arsenal in Europe and to threaten Russia. Moreover, the media furor is being used to distract attention from the USA’s plans to base nuclear weapons in Russia’s neighbors, including Poland and the NATO membership candidates Finland and Sweden.
Thirdly, well aware that nuclear weapons are a form of deterrent, the USA and its satellited are (or were until recently) genuinely concerned that their aggressive stance against Moscow, including in relation to the Ukrainian conflict (such as by supplying Ukraine with heavy weaponry, including long-range rocket systems, Western-made tanks and fighter aircraft) might be seen by the Russian government as threatening Russia’s security and justifying the use of nuclear weapons. In the last few months, the Russian government has offered many assurances that there is no question of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and as a result the West has concluded that the risk of Russian using weapons of mass destruction in any event is low, as is clear from the decision to base the US 101st Airborne Division in Romania, from where it could potentially be sent to Ukraine.
In response to the alleged risks of Russia using nuclear weapons, the US is working with Ukraine to deploy a force of submarines equipped with nuclear rockets, as well as aircraft carriers, both in the Mediterranean sea and in the waters off the British coast (at present well away from Russia, but still within the striking range of US nuclear rockets). This demonstration of US military force has clearly gone to the heads of Kiev’s politicians, who, emboldened by America’s unlimited military support, are puffing themselves up like male grouse in mating season and repeating their quite unrealistic call for the “total liberation” of Ukraine and its return to its 1991 borders. Volodymir Zelensky and his government have grouped around the slogan of “no negotiations with Moscow” and by cementing this position in law, they have forced themselves into a dead end.
Naturally, Volodymir Zelensky and his team need all the weapons and support from the West that they can get, and they are getting extremely wealthy in the process. He needs to draw out the conflict as long as possible, and is playing games with human lives and human suffering. But these speculations and the stories about Russia’s alleged plans to use nuclear weapons are the last think the people of Russia or Ukraine -especially the people of Ukraine, who are risking a winter without light or heating because of the unrealistic policies of their president and his Western allies.
Moscow’s message remains the same as in the past – we do not need to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and we are open to negotiation. Is it necessary to add anything to that?
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/11/ ... ar-threat/
POSTED BY @NSANZO ⋅ 10/11/2022
In the next few hours, Ukraine will recover the city of Kherson, the only Ukrainian regional capital beyond Donbass until now under Russian control. Yesterday, with a speech riddled with contradictions, the Defense Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Shoigu, gave the order to withdraw Russian troops from the right bank of the Dnieper to General Surovikin. With his words, Shoigu, not long ago one of the main candidates to succeed Vladimir Putin in the presidency at the end of his mandate, wanted to highlight that Russia has already evacuated 115,000 residents of the right bank, in what is the main success of the Russian performance in recent weeks. The minister also tried to combine a speech in which he stated that the front in the Kherson area has been stabilized with the idea that its defense is not possible. Until that moment, official Russian communications had stated that Russia continued to defeat every Ukrainian attempt to penetrate its lines. Just minutes after the confirmation of what was already an open secret, Ukraine raised its flag in a first area of Snigirovka, where the Ukrainian attacks were supposedly being repelled.
The latest events cannot be considered a surprise but rather the logical conclusion to a series of problems that date back months. Last February, the Russian advance in the southern zone was rapid. At that time, in an accumulation of defections and decisions aware of the need to leave areas where the Ukrainian Armed Forces were in inferiority against a Russian Army whose shortcomings had not been revealed, Ukraine correctly chose to prioritize the defense of his capital. While Ukraine succeeded in halting the Russian advance on the suburbs of kyiv and preventing the city from being besieged, thus thwarting Russian plans to force the Ukrainian government to agree to a deal on Moscow's terms, Russian troops were rapidly advancing towards Mariupol and towards Kherson.
However, the success in preventing the siege of kyiv gave Ukraine credibility with its partners, who would quickly begin the flow of military and financial assistance, and a certain strength in negotiations even in the toughest moments. In the period between the first and second meetings between the Russian and Ukrainian representatives, one of the Ukrainian negotiators was killed by the SBU in a shootout. While military intelligence claimed that he had died a hero, the SBU called him a traitor to Ukraine. But despite the military defeats in the south and the evident difficulties in the capital, the kyiv government was able to maintain unity and the refusal to make territorial concessions. With the Ukrainian refusal to accept the terms proposed by Moscow, involving Russian withdrawal from all areas of Ukraine beyond Donbass and Crimea, Russia was forced to modify its plans and recalibrate its objectives. If at any time it was, thespecial military operation had already turned into an open war.
In the six months since, Russia, which has futilely clung to the rhetoric and naive goals of the special military operation,It has tried to maintain a front in which its troops have been overextended and in which they have not been able to advance or, what has been more serious, to consolidate a serious defense capable of responding to Ukrainian attacks. Ukraine, which withstood the first Russian onslaught with its own weapons and its own soldiers and was able to use the negotiation process to delay any Russian advance on cities like Nikolaev, managed to buy enough time to start receiving large amounts of of armament. In March, without military victories to boast of, he presented as successes of his troops the capture of positions in the kyiv and Chernigov regions abandoned by Russian troops,
In September, after a first offensive on Kherson that ended with hospitals in Nikolaev overwhelmed by Ukrainian soldiers, kyiv achieved its greatest military success on the battlefield with the victory over Russian troops in Kharkov. While in Moscow, outside of reality, the reconstruction of the Saur Mogila monument in the DPR was celebrated with fireworks, the Ukrainian troops expelled the Russians from Balakleya and forced a hasty withdrawal from such important towns as Kupiansk and Izium.
Behind Oskol's back, logistics complicated the defense of the area. This was how the rapid abandonment of an area in which the representative of United Russia had personally affirmed to the population that Russia had come to stay forever was explained. This precedent made the defense of Kherson unlikely, behind a much more important river, the Dnieper. The changes made in these weeks, fundamentally the appointment of General Surovikin as head of the troops and the start of attacks against critical infrastructure in Ukraine, have bought time to, according to information on the ground, relatively stabilize the Lugansk front. Ukraine has not managed to repeat the Kharkov lightning offensive there and the Russian and Republican troops have managed, for the time being,
On the Kherson front, the last few weeks have shown a change in Russian tactics, which has started from accepting reality beyond a discourse of strength that has long since failed to correspond to reality. In his first public appearance since his appointment, General Surovikin made clear the plight of troops on the right bank of the Dnieper River, whose bridges have been bombed by Ukraine for months, further complicating already difficult logistics. Surovikin did not rule out making "difficult decisions". Russia began the evacuation of the population from the right bank of the Dnieper and later from part of the left bank, at risk of being flooded in the event of an explosion of the Kajovka reservoir. There was already talk of the only two possibilities: the evacuation of the population to ensure the defense of the city of Kherson without risking thousands of lives or withdrawal. This new defeat occurs again when there is no good news in any part of the front. Since July, Russia has been trying to attack, so far without success, the city of Artyomovsk and the Seversk-Soledar line. The great destruction is known, but not the number of casualties that is accumulating in this failed frontal assault strategy. The retreat from Kherson sheds light on the hasty and disastrous Pavlovka-Ugledar offensive, which, as Alexander Khodakovsky foretold, could not succeed without a larger operation in Ugledar. It is likely that Russia sought a victory, however temporary,
Yesterday's speech by Minister Shoigu, together with the transfer of the Kherson regional administration to Genichesk, the city in the Kherson region closest to Crimea, confirmed the Russian withdrawal. A withdrawal that will not be easy and in which there have already been victims. Moscow-appointed deputy governor of Kherson, Kiril Stremousov, died yesterday in a traffic accident in the outskirts of Genichesk, the last city on mainland Ukraine before the move to Crimea.
In recent days, as a Russian withdrawal from Kherson has become more likely, several media have mentioned the existence of negotiations between Russia and the United States and have linked the visit to kyiv of Andrew Sullivan, US national security adviser, to the restart of diplomacy. This speech raised the recovery of Kherson as a prerequisite. From there, with the Dnieper as a border, a ceasefire could be consolidated in a situation in which Ukraine would not give up the southern territories, would continue to receive weapons from its partners and electricity from the Energodar nuclear power plant, under Russian control. . Russia, which yesterday expressed its willingness to negotiate with Ukraine "taking into account the realities on the ground", would be forced to reach an agreement with serious reminiscences of the Minsk agreement, signed by Ukraine at its weakest point. As then, it is unlikely that an agreement under these conditions could be respected. Russia is now in its most vulnerable position, while Ukraine publicly and repeatedly reaffirms that its negotiation demands have not changed and will only accept Russian withdrawal from all Ukrainian territories along the borders inherited from the Soviet Union in 1991.
Ukraine refuses even to believe in the Russian withdrawal and continues to speak of a Russian ploy to invite the Armed Forces of Ukraine into a death trap in the city of Kherson. Nothing indicates that this will be the case, quite the opposite: Russia seems to have accepted the impossible of defending those positions and chooses to withdraw instead of condemning Kherson to a scenario similar to that of Mariupol. In the months in which it has enjoyed control over the area, the Russian Federation has failed to expand the security zone, exposing Kherson and the bridges linking the city with the Left Bank to Ukrainian artillery, nor has it managed to consolidate a viable defense in the city and surrounding areas.
In addition to the political risks involved in withdrawing from a city that Moscow proclaimed Russian two months ago, the withdrawal entails significant military dangers. Once Kherson is controlled, which Ukraine will receive without a large part of the pro-Russian population, which fled weeks ago, kyiv will have the ability to allocate its reserves to other areas of the front. The direction towards Melitopol or Berdyansk, trying to split the Russian territory in two in the south, could be the most dangerous for Russia, which will have to determine which is the front line that it considers politically and militarily capable of defending.
Until now, Russia has explained its military failures based on three ideas: the numerical superiority of kyiv; foreign support, which has made Moscow try to present the conflict as a confrontation against the whole of NATO and not against Ukraine, and the alleged large presence of foreign mercenaries (especially Poles). To this he has always added, generally without evidence, that Ukraine is suffering an enormous number of casualties, a strategy that is nothing more than the repetition of the Ukrainian discourse when it was its troops that were in retreat. In defeat, Russia has persistently found an explanation. However, so far, it has not always been able to find a solution.
https://slavyangrad.es/2022/11/10/rusia ... more-25909
Google Translator
**************
The Pullout From Kherson
The Russian command decided to remove its troops in the Kherson region from the left bank of the Dnieper.
Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu did not look happy when he gave the order. He knows that another such setback will cost him his job.
This move looks bad.
That alone will have consequences. The Ukrainians, the Biden administration and the European supporter of Ukraine will be emboldened by this. The support in Russia for the war will shrink. Some people in Russia will start to call for President Putin's head. There is no danger though that they will get it.
This move is operationally sound.
From the military point of view there is little chance to withstand a serious attack in the region as the resupply across the Dnieper river is very difficult and can not be guaranteed. Moreover the possible breach of the Dnieper river dams would make any resupply impossible for at least a week or even longer. That would be enough time for the Ukrainians to slaughter whatever number of Russian troops were left behind.
Strategically the move is bad.
It closes for now the possibility of moving into Nikolaev (Mykolaiv) and further towards Odessa. This could have and should have been done earlier. But the Russian commanded did not commit sufficient forces for that fight. There were also sound reason for not doing that. Now it is too late to criticize those decisions.
It is quite possible that, behind the scene, a deal has been made over this. If one was made we are unlikely to learn of it anytime soon.
The priorities now should be to get the soldiers and equipment out of the area. It will require intense air defense coverage to prevent the close down of ferry points by Ukrainian artillery. There is no reason to make it easy for the Ukraine to regain the area. Until the evacuation is done any significant Ukrainian move into the area should be responded to with effective artillery fire.
Soon the Ukrainian army will start to move troops prepared for an attack in Kherson to other front lines. Russia must likewise move its troops to reinforce its positions elsewhere.
Morale requires that the next Russian move has to be big push with strategic significance. The concept of deep battle and deep operations should be reapplied. Historically it has nearly always worked to Russia's advantage.
But the big push does not need to be solely militarily. A further significant damage of Ukraine's economy via its electricity network is an additional option. To severely interdict its supply lines from the west is another one.
We need to look at the big picture.
The world is moving away from a unilateral 'western' led model towards a new multilateral future. By waging war in Ukraine Russia initiated and accelerated this historic change. In sight of that the pullback from Kherson is just a minor tactical loss. It can and likely will be rectified by moves happening elsewhere.
Posted by b on November 10, 2022 at 10:42 UTC | Permalink
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/11/t ... l#comments
***************
Russian Kherson Withdrawal: Trap? Or Necessary Chess Move?
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on NOVEMBER 9, 2022
Russia’s Ministry of Defense has announced the withdrawal of Russian forces from Kherson city to the east bank of the Dnieper River.
This was alluded to 3 weeks ago by General Sergey Surovikin and for the purpose of weathering Ukraine’s all-or-nothing offensive while preserving Russian manpower and equipment.
While Russian forces have successfully defended the city until now, even the slightest possibility of Ukrainian forces overwhelming Russian troops on the wrong side of the river would result in a defeat of historic proportions.
Russia has now eliminated that possibility.
Meanwhile, Russian forces continue dismantling Ukraine’s national power grid, its air defense network, and what remains of its overstretched forces.
Ukraine fights for today’s headlines, Russia is fighting to win the long war.
References:
The New Atlas – Russian General Surovikin Speaks, Kherson Battle Looms, Drone/Missiles Strikes Continue (October 19, 2022): https://youtu.be/dH-0e4WA8Pc?t=760
RT – Russia to pull troops out of frontline city of Kherson – MOD: https://www.rt.com/russia/565869-russ…
Al Jazeera – Ukrainian official says talk of Russian withdrawal from Kherson is premature (scroll down): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/livebl…
Mikhailo Podolyak (Twitter) – reaction to Russian MOD announcement: https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status…
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/11/ ... hess-move/
Ukraine War: No End in View
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on NOVEMBER 9, 2022
M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
The US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s meetings with Ukrainian leaders, including President Vladimir Zelensky, in Kiev has created a lot of confusion and misperceptions. One one side, the White House maintains that the trip aimed “to underscore the United States’ steadfast support to Ukraine and its people.” The readout stated that Sullivan also affirmed “the continued provision of economic and humanitarian assistance, as well as ongoing efforts with partners to hold Russia accountable for its aggression.”
However, unnamed US officials gave the spin that Sullivan’s real mission was to “nudge” Zelensky to negotiate with Moscow and urge that “Kyiv must show its willingness to end the war reasonably and peacefully.” Politico later reported that Zelensky indeed heeded Sullivan’s “soft nudging”. The US media also reported that the US officials have been nudging the Ukrainians for sometime.
The Washington Post reported last week that the Biden administration privately encouraged Ukrainian officials to show they are willing to engage in dialogue with Russia, in an acknowledgment of the growing frustration in the US and some of its allies at the cost and duration of the war. But, apparently, the Ukrainians pushed back.
Sullivan also added some spice to the media speculation by claiming on Monday that the US has channels to communicate with Russia at senior levels. The Wall Street Journal had earlier reported, citing unnamed US and Western officials, that Sullivan had allegedly held a series of confidential meetings recently with Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov and Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev on the conflict in Ukraine. (Moscow has not reacted to these reports.)
The heart of the matter is that Sullivan has been on a PR exercise in the run-up to the midterms in the US (November 8) in a concerted strategy aimed at countering the growing criticism among the Democrats and Republicans that the Biden Administration is avoiding the diplomatic track to try to end the war in Ukraine. In fact, all indications are that the Biden Administration is preparing for the long haul in Ukraine.
Stars and Stripes reported on Wednesday that a three-star general will lead a new Army headquarters in Germany called the Security Assistance Group Ukraine, or SAGU, that will include about 300 US service members responsible for coordinating security assistance for Ukraine. On Sunday, The New York Times had reported that Lt. Gen. Antonio Aguto Jr., head of the First US Army headquarters at Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois, was a leading candidate for the new job.
The SAGU will be based out of US Army Europe and Africa headquarters in Wiesbaden. Sabrina Singh, the deputy Pentagon press secretary, told reporters the new command will “ensure we are postured to continue supporting Ukraine over the long term.” She added the US remains “committed to Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
It is improbable that Moscow has fallen for Sullivan’s dissimulation. There is reason to believe that Sullivan who is a thoroughbred neocon from the Clinton clan would only have urged Zelensky to expedite the planned Ukrainian offensive on Kherson, which has been in the limelight. The Biden Administration is badly in need of a success story from Ukraine as the newly-elected Congress convenes in January with a likely Republican Party majority in the House of Representatives.
No doubt, the Russians are taking the Ukrainian offensive in Kherson seriously. In a stunning announcement in Moscow on Wednesday, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu ordered a troop pullout from the western side of the Dnieper River in the Kherson Region. The fact that the Kremlin is risking criticism from the Russian public opinion for ordering such a retreat (from a region that is actually an integral part of Russia) underscores the gravity of the Ukrainian military threat. Zelensky is forcing Moscow to literally eat its words about the “demilitarisation” of Ukraine!
Zelensky continues to be in a belligerent mood. On Monday, Zelensky did make a peace offer but with five conditions for a settlement:
*Restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity;
*Russia respecting UN Charter on sovereignty and territorial integrity;
*Russia paying off all war reparations;
*Punishing each war criminal; and,
*Guarantees that such an invasion and atrocities will not happen again.
The only “concession” Zelensky made is that he didn’t mention his earlier precondition that President Vladimir Putin should relinquish office before any negotiations.
There is no end in view for the war in Ukraine. By the way, although the midterm elections are typically the point in a US presidential cycle where one expects to see top Cabinet members begin to turn over, there is no sign of that happening to Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin.
Austin, 69, being a critical voice in the Ukraine conflict, who mobilised billions of dollars worth of military aid from around the world for Kiev, Biden anticipates that the war effort may only become more entrenched and this is not the time to change up the top ranks of the Pentagon.
Indeed, the ground situation shows that the ongoing Russian operations in the areas of Ugledar and Bakhmut in Donetsk have run into strong resistance from Ukrainian forces, contrary to the Russian narrative Kiev’s military is a demoralised lot.
In particular, the advance of the Russians around Ugledar got stuck in the village of Pavlovka, located on the important crossroads, and in a fierce battle three days ago, reportedly, hundreds of Russian soldiers were killed. Putin’s decision to retreat in Kherson is probably meant to avoid a similar fate, as the Russians are experiencing logistical difficulties to supply their forces on the western side of Dnieper river.
Of course, this seamy picture is not the whole picture insofar as the phase of regrouping and resupplying following the Russian mobilisation is still a work in progress and the ongoing fighting in Donbass and Kherson is at the tactical level and does not involve any large movements of troops.
Equally, the intensive Russian strikes on Ukrainian depots, command centres and artillery and air-defence systems plus the destruction of Ukraine’s military-industrial facilities and energy system are yet to impact Kiev’s capacity to wage the war.
To be sure, the situation on the front lines in Kherson region remains extremely tense. The Ukrainian forces are on the prowl probing the Russian defence line incessantly to break through to capture the city of Kherson. A large-scale offensive by the Ukrainian forces on Kherson is to be expected any day. So far, Russian are holding their positions, repelling the ongoing Ukrainian attacks and fortifying their defences.
From Kherson, Ukrainian artillery can threaten Crimea. In the prognosis of Moscow’s close ally, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, “Challenging times are ahead of us. Next winter will be even harsher than this one because we’re facing the Battle of Stalingrad, the decisive battle in the conflict in Ukraine, the battle for Kherson.” He predicted that both sides are likely to deploy thousands of tanks, aircraft and artillery pieces in the struggle for the key city.
Vucic said, “The West thinks it’ll be able to ruin Russia that way, while Russia believes it’ll be able to defend what it secured at the start of the war and bring it to an end.”
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/11/ ... d-in-view/
Short shelf life, huh?
The Ukrainian Conflict and the Nuclear Threat
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on NOVEMBER 9, 2022
Oleg Pavlov
In the last few months the USA and its European allies (or de facto satellites), and US-controlled media, have been persistently and even obsessively speculating about Russia’s alleged plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict.
One of the most recent of these provocations was a story published in Britain’s Daily Mail, which claimed that Russian has already chose the target for a nuclear strike. The article cites a recent conversation between the Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron. The French President was made nervous by statements made by Vladimir Putin, which he saw as a threat aimed at Ukraine.
Although in actual fact the Russian President’s words mean quite the opposite: as he has said on more than one occasion, and not only to Emmanuel Macron, the USA is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons, and that in doing so it set a precedent. Russia has also stressed a number of times that there are no political or military reasons why it should use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The circumstances in which Russian could use nuclear weapons are comprehensively listed in a document issued on June 20, 2020, the Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence. That document clearly states that Russia considers nuclear weapons “exclusively as a means of deterrence, their use being an extreme and compelled measure”. It also states that in the event of a military conflict, Russia’s policy provides for the termination of military actions on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation.
The West has sought to relate the above passages to the war in Ukraine, taking no account either of the very limited circumstances in which Russia could use nuclear weapons or of the undertaking made by Russia and the other nuclear powers in the UN Security Council in a special statement issued on January 3, 2022. In that statement, issued before the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, the five members of the UN Security Council stressed that they “consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities”. The statement goes on to stress that “nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war”. In the document the signatories expressly declare that none of their nuclear weapons are targeted at each other or at any other State.
That could hardly be expressed any more clearly. The Russian government has also issued statements affirming this principle, as has the Chinese government, not least during the visit by the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to China, so why, one may ask, is the West persistently and stubbornly promoting nuclear scare stories.
The answer to that question may not be quite as simple as it might appear at first sight. Firstly, no-one in the West has forgotten the speech made by the Ukrainian President, Volodymir Zelensky, in the 58th Munich Security Conference, in which he directly stated that if the guarantors of the Budapest Memorandum did not agree to consultations and Ukraine was not offered any security guarantees, then Ukraine would have every right “to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all package decisions of 1994 have been put under question”. In other words, on February 20 this year, before the beginning of Russia’s special military operation, Ukraine raised the issue of relinquishing its nuclear-free status. It is therefore understandable that Russia was concerned that Ukraine might engage in secret operations to restore its nuclear potential in some way, possibly by making a so-called dirty nuclear bomb which could be used in a false flag operation as a pretext for accusing Russia of breaching its commitment in the UN Security Council statement issued on January 3.
Secondly, while they vary in content, the continuous scare stories about Russia’s alleged plans to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine serve as a cover enabling politicians and the media to probe Moscow’s intentions in relation to the conflict in Ukraine. Russia is continually being forced to deny baseless and far-fetched accusations on its alleged plans to use weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that Moscow is always having to justify itself gives other countries the mistaken impression that it is hiding something and has something up its sleeve. Ironically, it is widely known that after the end of the Second World War the Western powers, especially Britain, drew up detailed potential plans to attack the USSR using nuclear weapons (the now declassified Dropshot and Unthinkable plans).
And now, the unfounded rumors about Russia’s plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine are being used as a smokescreen to enable the further modernization of the USA’s nuclear arsenal in Europe and to threaten Russia. Moreover, the media furor is being used to distract attention from the USA’s plans to base nuclear weapons in Russia’s neighbors, including Poland and the NATO membership candidates Finland and Sweden.
Thirdly, well aware that nuclear weapons are a form of deterrent, the USA and its satellited are (or were until recently) genuinely concerned that their aggressive stance against Moscow, including in relation to the Ukrainian conflict (such as by supplying Ukraine with heavy weaponry, including long-range rocket systems, Western-made tanks and fighter aircraft) might be seen by the Russian government as threatening Russia’s security and justifying the use of nuclear weapons. In the last few months, the Russian government has offered many assurances that there is no question of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and as a result the West has concluded that the risk of Russian using weapons of mass destruction in any event is low, as is clear from the decision to base the US 101st Airborne Division in Romania, from where it could potentially be sent to Ukraine.
In response to the alleged risks of Russia using nuclear weapons, the US is working with Ukraine to deploy a force of submarines equipped with nuclear rockets, as well as aircraft carriers, both in the Mediterranean sea and in the waters off the British coast (at present well away from Russia, but still within the striking range of US nuclear rockets). This demonstration of US military force has clearly gone to the heads of Kiev’s politicians, who, emboldened by America’s unlimited military support, are puffing themselves up like male grouse in mating season and repeating their quite unrealistic call for the “total liberation” of Ukraine and its return to its 1991 borders. Volodymir Zelensky and his government have grouped around the slogan of “no negotiations with Moscow” and by cementing this position in law, they have forced themselves into a dead end.
Naturally, Volodymir Zelensky and his team need all the weapons and support from the West that they can get, and they are getting extremely wealthy in the process. He needs to draw out the conflict as long as possible, and is playing games with human lives and human suffering. But these speculations and the stories about Russia’s alleged plans to use nuclear weapons are the last think the people of Russia or Ukraine -especially the people of Ukraine, who are risking a winter without light or heating because of the unrealistic policies of their president and his Western allies.
Moscow’s message remains the same as in the past – we do not need to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and we are open to negotiation. Is it necessary to add anything to that?
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/11/ ... ar-threat/