The decision to withdraw from Kherson after weeks of fierce fighting around the strategic Ukrainian city came as no surprise to the Russian elite.
Preparations for this have been in full swing for at least the last two weeks.
The military withdrawal was preceded by the evacuation of more than 115,000 civilians and thousands of necessary equipment, including fire trucks and ambulances.
But despite all this, the Russian military’s withdrawal, which was announced as completed today, has raised much debate and disappointment about Moscow’s ‘fateful’ battle in a vital area.
Over the past nine months, Moscow has for the first time managed to transport supplies overland to the Crimean peninsula and has also used Kherson as a staging and supply point for all Russian regions in southern and eastern Ukraine.
This is why, whatever the military justifications, outrage has emerged in the comments on social media about the decision to withdraw.
This was accompanied by a bitter sense of defeat, of having to make painful concessions after the battles.
According to a poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTSIOM), Russians have a high level of confidence in the decisions of the Russian leadership.
But the poll by the center close to the Kremlin is not very important.
The mechanisms for discussing the issue in the Russian media are also devoid of any criticism of the military establishment’s performance, contrary to some reports.
This was evident in an earlier period, especially during the withdrawal from positions around Kiev and later in Kharkov.
The Novosti article ‘We did not withdraw from Kherson’ suggested that the move was temporary and tactical, with a strong move to come after completing the redistribution of forces on the left bank of the river.
Nezavisimaya Gazeta published a long article highlighting the reasons for the decision to withdraw, its background and future prospects.
According to the article, military experts believe that the transfer of units of the Russian Armed Forces will take several weeks.
However, the Russian military’s statement is that the withdrawal is complete.
What is noteworthy here is that experts acknowledge that it is not certain that the strategic maneuver (withdrawal) will bring significant defense benefits to Moscow.
The retreating Russian forces are exposed to artillery attacks by the Ukrainian armed forces.
State Duma deputy Andrey Gurulev said that the withdrawal is one of the most difficult types of military operations, noting that there is a serious threat that units of the Ukrainian army, freed from pressure in the south, could move to the front line in Donbas and Kharkov.
The most prominent criticism, however, was to warn against repeating the experience of the withdrawal from Kharkov.
According to some experts, there is hope that the Russian army, in retreating along the Dnieper River, will take into account the mistakes made during the regrouping of forces near Kharkov in September.
It was stressed that in Kherson it was necessary to ensure the protection not only of manpower, but also of the armored vehicles and weapons of the Russian forces.
Here the Russians recall scenes of retreat during the Ukrainian offensive against Kharkov.
Ukrainian media and Russian military correspondents claimed that when Russian forces withdrew from their positions and left the key cities of Izyum and Balakliya, in some cases the troops acted in haste without proper preparation, which led to heavy losses in the ranks of the Russian army.
A report in Novosti, the most important media outlet for the Kremlin, warned against an escalating wave of frustration.
The report read as follows;
“There is no betrayal in the elite, because those who do not share the longing for victory, firstly, have no influence on the power of authority, and secondly, have ceased to be elite. Yes, we have a big problem with personnel in that professionals are often not patriots and patriots are not professionals. But in extreme cases, all processes are accelerated and a new government-oriented elite is created from power to business and culture much more quickly. We need to get rid of weak and incompetent leaders, while relying on the unity of all forces that understand the seriousness of the challenges we face with the tasks.”
“There is nothing wrong with taking the lessons of history here to face a situation of loss of confidence or disillusionment. The average Russian just needs to remember this. This is not the first time Russia has withdrawn from very important areas. Mikhail Kutuzov can tell us a lot about the strategic retreat that paved the way for Russia to always retreat and then advance.”
The phrase is a metaphor for the Russian leader Kutuzov’s retreat in the face of Napoleon’s armies entering Moscow in 1812, before launching a fierce offensive that ended in the defeat of the French.
