what the Russian withdrawal from the key area of ​​Jershon means for the conflict

Russia has announced that it is withdrawing its forces from the city of Jershon. This represents another reversal for Putin’s campaign. The Black Sea port on the Dnieper River is the only important city Russia has managed to capture, and is the administrative capital of Jershon Oblast, which was one of four regions Russia annexed in September. His apparent abandonment will certainly have important implications.

Throughout northern and central Ukraine, the conflict is becoming increasingly static, though it loses none of its rawness. The changing seasons make it difficult for both sides to make quick progress as the weather turns for the worse. On the front lines, ground forces will simply struggle to survive falling temperatures.

For the past few weeks, attention has focused on the Kherson region, with the expectation that it would represent one last major confrontation before winter changes the nature of the conflict.

Now, the commander of the Russian forces in Ukraine, General Sergei Surovikin, has announced that the Russian forces will withdraw from the city and that they will do so across the Dnieper to the south. This has been something of a surprise. He had been talking about how Russia had barricaded itself in the city, preparing for a big battle. Surovikin’s announcement included a rare public acknowledgment of the inadequacy of the Russian forces: he cited the logistical challenge of getting supplies to the troops under his command as the reason for the withdrawal. This is naturally quite suspicious.

Urban war?

A retreat at this point makes some practical sense. Russia is now fundamentally on the defensive, and she needs to pick her battles carefully. Kherson offers the possibility for the Russians to force advancing Ukrainians into urban warfare, a costly form of combat that is often disastrous for the attacking side. However, this would come at a terrible cost to the defending Russian forces, and at this time, Russia cannot afford to take losses of this magnitude.

There are some indications that the withdrawal could be a deception, an example of the Russian tradition of mixing politics and military action to deceive the adversary: ​​its famous “maskirovka”, or masked war. Having learned from its disastrous urban confrontations in Chechnya, Russia may be trying to give Ukraine a taste of what they themselves experienced in the past. But if this is the case, it seems that Ukrainian intelligence has already caught on to the ruse.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the decision is divisive in Moscow. While some, including the influential head of the Wagner mercenary group Yevgeny Prigozhin, are willing to see the move as pragmatic, others – like Chechen leader Kadyrov, who recently called for a “great jihad” against the people of Ukraine – probably be less tolerant of the reverse.

This division speaks of the material and symbolic value of the city. The largest population center captured in the course of the Russian “special military operation” is the center of industry and agriculture, as well as a port with access to both the Black Sea and the adjoining Dnieper. If the Ukraine is able to retake Kherson, it will be one step away from Crimea.

Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot afford another humiliation: losing the city would compromise his control over the illegally annexed region of Zaporizhia. However, a costly fight would further deplete his already battered ground forces. Following the recent disastrous advance by elite Russian forces in the north, the military leadership may be taking steps to preserve their remaining experienced soldiers.

Next steps

Instead, in the coming months, Russian forces are likely to eschew the formula of a decisive confrontation while continuing the war in other ways, such as their drone strikes on civilian infrastructure. Furthermore, they may be betting that NATO aid will wane during the winter months, hoping that economic pressures and energy shortages will force Ukraine’s supporters to refocus on their own populations.

For their part, Ukraine’s military planners would be willing to maintain the offensive. President Volodymyr Zelensky is also aware that a stalemate could dry up Western military support. Ukrainian leaders have stood firm on their promise to recapture all occupied territories, including Crimea, which was annexed in 2014.

However, the success at Kherson represents 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 this commitment extends to reconquering territory Russia claims to have annexed earlier. A much larger breakthrough would make reconquering Crimea a real possibility, and there is speculation about Russia’s next move if that were likely, with concerns that it could lead to a nuclear response. Fear of such a backlash could cause Ukraine’s supporters to reconsider their options.

In the short term, the flow of support is likely to continue, but the long-term picture is more complicated. In the United States, a significant part of the population believes that too much aid is being sent abroad. Given the Republican Party’s stance on this issue, some – including Russian leaders – speculated that the US mid-term elections would represent a critical moment. Of course, US President Joe Biden has also had to rebuke members of his own party who have made it clear that they would prefer a negotiated solution.

American presidents make mistakes, of course, but after the disastrous result of withdrawing US support from the previous government in Afghanistan, expecting the same mistake to be repeated twice by the same administration is wishful thinking.

Regardless of what happens south of Kherson, Ukraine can probably count on the flow of arms and support for at least a while longer.

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

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