Posted on 11/10/2022 6:05:39 AM PST by Salohcin
Translation by Emily Laskin.
On November 9, Sergey Surovikin, commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, recommended a retreat from the right bank of the Dnipro River during a live television broadcast. Russian Minister of Defense Sergey Shoigu publicly agreed with him. In October, the Kremlin began preparing the Russian public for a retreat in the region, which they assumed would be unpopular with pro-war Russians. Meanwhile, sources close to the Kremlin believe the announcement is meant to be an invitation to Ukraine to resume negotiations.
On the Kherson front, our losses are seven to eight times less than the enemy’s. We’re thinking first and foremost of the lives of Russian soldiers. The decision to set up defense on the left bank of the Dnipro [that is, to retreat from Kherson] was not straightforward, but it will protect the lives of our soldiers and the combat-effectiveness of our troops.
That’s how Sergey Surovikin, commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, officially explained the necessity of leaving Kherson to Minister of Defense Sergey Shoigu. Shoigu accepted the argument and ordered the withdrawal of troops on live television.
Meduza sources who are close to the Kremlin were reporting a month ago that Russian troops might leave at least part of the Kherson region. In early November, they said the Kremlin considered the surrender of Kherson a “likely but undesirable scenario.” The final decision, according to sources, must be made by President Vladimir Putin.
Putin’s administration wrote a manual for propagandists to prepare the public for a retreat in Kherson. It advised them to paint Ukraine as manipulative and bloodthirsty, and to emphasize that “Russian troops seek to save the lives of civilians and personnel.”
Surovikin repeated practically every one of the manual’s points, as did Secretary of the General Council for United Russia, Andrey Turchak, who as of May was sure that Russia would be in Kherson “forever.”
“Our boys near Kherson were subject to huge risks. They could be cut off from supply lines at any moment, and maintaining defense in that situation would be extremely complex…The main purpose of today’s maneuver is protecting the population while preserving as many personnel as possible,” Turchak wrote on Telegram.
The Kremlin is well aware that Russians who support the war will receive news of the Russian army’s retreat from Kherson “very negatively.” Meduza’s sources close to Putin’s administration admitted that “it’s a problem.”
Authorities hope that because of mobilization the majority of Russians will identify with the topic of saving soldiers’ lives, which earlier propaganda also bet on. “When members of your own family, your close friends, or even more distant acquaintances, are fighting, you relate differently to military actions,” said one source.
According to another Kremlin source, the Security Council discussed a withdrawal from Kherson in early November in connection not only with the very difficult situation at the front, but also in the context of a return to negotiations with Ukraine.
“It’s not only a military necessity, such a step is also an invitation to negotiations. There’s some change in negotiating positions,” a source said. According to another Meduza source, negotiations are possible but not “in the near term.” And if they do happen, Russia’s official position will be that Kherson, which it formally annexed in September, is “territory occupied by Ukraine.”
As Meduza has already reported, the Kremlin would likely not seek a full-fledged peace treaty in a new round of negotiations, but rather a temporary ceasefire. The Kremlin believes that the Russian and Ukrainian militaries could agree to this without the involvement of either country’s president. Meduza’s sources close to the Kremlin believed that Russia would be willing to return part of occupied Kherson in exchange for a ceasefire, buying the Russian army time to prepare a new full-fledged offensive.
A few hours before the withdrawal from Kherson was announced, Maria Zakharova, representative of Russia’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that “Russia remains open to negotiating with Ukraine – of course, accounting for the realities of the present moment.”
In a video address from November 7, Volodymyr Zelensky named five conditions for negotiating with Russia. “Again: restoration of territorial integrity, respect for the UN Charter, reparations for all damages caused by the war, punishment of every war criminal, and guarantees that this won’t happen again,” said the Ukrainian president.
He did not, however, repeat his earlier assertion that negotiations are impossible while Vladimir Putin remains president of Russia. Politico noted that, while US officials did not outright tell Zelensky to change his stance, they conveyed that Kyiv should “demonstrate its willingness” to end the war by peaceful means.
According to two sources close to the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin’s positions have not changed. The Russian president is firm that Ukraine should at least recognize the Donbas and Crimea as Russian territory. Ideally, he intends to have Russia’s right to all of the occupied territories recognized. Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, did not answer Meduza’s questions.
It would be a humbling loss of face for him if he would be willing to give up on claims to his newly annexed territories in "Novorossiya", which is probably the minimum concession that Ukraine would find acceptable.
Some sort of compromise might be possible on NATO membership and security guarantees for Ukraine. Perhaps Ukraine agreeing to not formally joining NATO but allowing it to have an association agreement where NATO guarantees Ukraine against any future Russian attack? Yes, no? I'm not smart enough to work that one out, but perhaps the diplomats might find something that is workable.
The stumbling block in any negotiations would be Crimea and the Donbass territories that Putin seized in 2014. Putin probably couldn't survive politically if her returned these territories, even under a new Minsk-type arrangement, so this is likely a red line for him.
“Some sort of compromise might be possible on NATO membership and security guarantees for Ukraine.”
Russia “guaranteed” Ukrainian security when they gave up the nukes the Soviets had stationed there.
Russian “guarantees” aren’t worth a beer fart in a whirlwind.
L
Putin will negotiate an end to the fighting by getting what he wanted all along - the Donbas region will be annexed just as Crimea was in 2014.
Putin thought he could drive his forces to Kyiv, oust Zelinsky, and install another pro-Russian puppet government in Ukraine.
Unfortunately for Putin, that proved harder than initially thought, so sooner or later Putin will settle for Donbas.
“Russian “guarantees” aren’t worth a beer fart in a whirlwind”
Just as the Minsk agreements proved the worthlessness of Ukrainian and Europe’s “guarantees”........
Ukraine had a bunch of iron-clad assurances from NATO when they gave up their nuclear weapons. I suspect they no longer believe in assurances, promises, treaties, letters-of-agreements and all the other academic bruhaha our academics in government like to throw around as if they represent battalion tactical groups. The two sides are too far apart to end the war. The war will end when one side or the other is so beaten, so exhausted that it can’t go on.
When the war is thoroughly lost by one side or the other the losing side will signify the loss by removing and possibly killing their leader. Both leaders know this so the incentive to compromise is “limited.”
The Russians may not be able to get enough food to the civilian population of the city.
They might also be freeing up troops to slice off most of Ukraine, or preventing the destruction of another city.
Can someone explain this?
I don't see a retreat as a negotiation ploy.
I hope they start serious negotiations but have the Russians even altered the last set of demands on Ukraine?
I know the Ukrainians have stated basically "get out, even Crimea, and give us Billions $...", but what are the Russians countering with?
The Russians may try to make Ukrainian leaders their puppets on penalty of removal.
In the USA court clerks have to sanction sodomy to keep their jobs.
Good news. Now all we have to do is figure out how we can stop the RETARD in the White House (that’s racist) from sending the Ukies pallets of American tax dollars.
The weapons officially belonged to the Commonwealth of Independent States as I recollect.
If North Dakota declared independence, the nuclear weapons in the state would still be under the control of the Pentagon.
An astonishing admission that will drive the Putin lackeys insane:
On the Kherson front, our losses are seven to eight times less than the enemy’s. We’re thinking first and foremost of the lives of Russian soldiers. The decision to set up defense on the left bank of the Dnipro [that is, to retreat from Kherson] was not straightforward, but it will protect the lives of our soldiers and the combat-effectiveness of our troops.
They’d been posting about how the Ukraine was depleting their forces with incessant failed attacks. But the truth was, they weren’t parroting the official Russian line; they were going far beyond the Russian propaganda claims straight into a fantasy world.
I recollect reading in the French site of Le Figaro that Ukraine might get 18 billion Euros from the EU.
“” In a video address from November 7, Volodymyr Zelensky named five conditions for negotiating with Russia. “Again: restoration of territorial integrity, respect for the UN Charter, reparations for all damages caused by the war, punishment of every war criminal, and guarantees that this won’t happen again,” said the Ukrainian president. “”
Well, once that is achieved, what left is there to negotiate?
Ukrainians in the city might give information on the location of Russian troops to Ukrainian forces, permitting Russians in the city to be accurately targeted.
Russia wants a guaranteed land bridge to the Crimea.
You recall incorrectly. The Commonwealth of Independent States was not the legal heir of the Soviet Union. It was created in late 1991 as an intergovernmental organization by the then already independent and sovereign nations of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.
Now more than before I think it's important that Russia gain nothing from the current war, and that Ukraine should be admitted to NATO and the EU. The Russians are not in a position to insist on anything.
The Ukrainians are never going to get that. As Margert Thatcher once said “Sooner or later you’ll run out of other people’s money.”
But this applies to both sides. Ukraine has no money of its own, but Russia financial resources aren’t infinite.
Look at it through the eyes of a space alien diplomat. You have no stake in wither nation or either side backing either nation.
The Ukrainians should give up the Donbas and claims to Crimea. The Russians should give up Zaporizhya and Kherson.
Russia pays damage reparations through a surcharge on gas and petrol sales to Europe when sanctions are lifted.
Russia’s empire building dreams have been crushed by their own performance. There’s no need to add anything to guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty except another war they cannot win.
I know neither side will agree to this, but it would be the best compromise, which is probably why neither will agree-circular logic, I know.
A negotiated settlement means just that.
Are the Russians withdrawing from the right bank in the vicinity of the Kakhovka Dam?
This is a much less populated area that would not require support of civilians during the winter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.