The liberation of Kherson: an opportunity for peace?

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has visited Kherson days after a Russian troop withdrawal from the southern Ukrainian city, a site of strategic importance it has held since the early days of the invasion.

“We are moving forward,” the Ukrainian president told troops in the regional capital. “We are ready for peace, peace for all our country.”

Last week, Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu announced he had ordered his troops to withdraw from the eastern side of the Dnieper River, marking a “significant retreat and potential turning point in the war”, said Reuters.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

The move comes just a month after Russian president Vladimir Putin illegally annexed Kherson as well as the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia.

Has Russia really withdrawn?

Ukrainian troops on Friday entered Kherson, the only provincial capital to be taken by Russia in its invasion. The military said it was overseeing “stabilization measures” around Kherson to make sure it was safe, according to the Associated Press. The news wire added that Ukraine was making quick but steady efforts to make the city liveable after months of occupation, with one official telling AP it was “a humanitarian catastrophe”.

Politico reported in early November that Western intelligence thought Russian withdrawal plans were “well advanced”. However, Ukrainian authorities have expressed concerns it could simply be a Russian “trick” and a way of luring Ukrainian forces into urban warfare.

“Considering the fact that they have been preparing for street battles for a long time, the way they position their units, we are aware of the planned tactics and should not be in a hurry to rejoice,” Natalia Humeniuk, spokesperson for Ukraine’s southern military command, said last week.

Why is Kherson so important?

The city has symbolic significance for Moscow as the only regional capital that its forces have captured since the beginning of the invasion in February.

“It’s clear the loss of Kherson and the Kherson bridgehead will have consequences for Russia’s image and will be viewed negatively inside Russia,” said Oleksander Musiyenko, a military analyst who spoke to Reuters.

And strategically, its loss will be a huge blow to the Kremlin. The region borders Crimea, and provides Russia with a land bridge to the Black Sea peninsula that it seized from Ukraine in 2014, and whose annexation Putin “sees as a key achievement of his more than two decades in power”, said Reuters. Retaking Kherson would “deprive Moscow of that land corridor” as well as “bring long-range Ukrainian artillery closer to Crimea, which Moscow sees as vitally important to its interests”.

Most significantly, it would “shatter” Moscow’s hopes of seizing the nearby cities of Mykolaiv and Odesa, and cutting off Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea. This would have allowed Moscow to “potentially build a land corridor to the separatist Transnistria region of Moldova”, which is “home to a crucial Russian military base”, said Al Jazeera.

Is this a major development in the war?

The loss of Kherson would leave Putin with huge troubles domestically. “If the Russians leave Kherson, the Kremlin will face another wave of fierce criticism of the military command and the authorities in general from ultra-patriotic circles,” said Volodymyr Fesenko, head of the independent Kyiv-based think-tank Penta Center, speaking to the Associated Press.

He added that the fall of the city would also likely affect the already hugely demoralised military, and fuel further opposition to mobilisation efforts.

But the loss of the city will also be seen as a “sign of Kremlin weakness” in the eyes of allies China and India, said Fesenko. “Putin will face reputational losses not only inside the country, but also in the eyes of China, and that could be particularly dangerous for the Kremlin,” he said.

A retreat by Russia could also “bolster” Ukraine’s case to the West that it is capable of winning significant military battles, and should be given more Western military support, “including advanced weapons and air defense systems to protect against Russian barrages targeting infrastructure”, said Vox.

Rajan Menon, from the Defense Priorities think-tank in Washington, told Vox that it could give Ukraine “a very strong card to play, which is: you’re supplying us – but we’re delivering, we’re showing we’re capable of winning.”

It may prove crucial in combating “Ukraine fatigue” among previously supportive nations as the conflict fuels steep rises in food and energy prices across the globe. Last week Washington privately urged Kyiv to signal a willingness to negotiate with Russia to prevent the withdrawal of Western aid to Ukraine.

But many Ukrainian officials have “hardened their stance” towards peace talks in recent months after the illegal Russian annexation of four Ukrainian regions, said The Washington Post. This feeling has been strengthened by the “systematic atrocities in areas under Russian control, including rape and torture, along with regular airstrikes on Kyiv and other cities”.

Many also point out that the 2015 peace deal in the eastern Donbas region “only provided Russia time before Putin launched his full-scale invasion this year” and “question why any new peace deal would be different”. They argue that Ukraine’s sovereignty could only be secured by “vanquishing” Russia’s military on the Ukrainian battlefield.