Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
Commentary by Russian military blogger Andrey Chervonets
Russian troops are moving to the left bank of the Dnieper in the Nikolaev-Krivoy Rog direction in accordance with the plan, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
First it was "goodwill steps", then redeployment, then regrouping, then withdrawal, now maneuver. It is a pity that they did not specify, was this provided for by the plan, which was approved on February 24 or even earlier?
The most interesting thing is that the RF Armed Forces retreat from the city, worsened their disposition. According to information just a few days ago, the military from the field and military correspondents, there were every opportunity to hold the city.
Retreat could only be by political decision. It happened. Now the RF Armed Forces, instead of good positions, will be located on the eastern bank in a lowland relative to the western bank of the Dnieper. That is, under an excellent opportunity for shelling from the enemy. Standing on the left bank is like standing as a target in a shooting range. Is this incomprehensible?
Plus, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have a wonderful opportunity to transfer reserves and forces to other areas.
The command absolutely accurately calculated and is confident that “saving the lives of our military personnel” is quite acceptable: if not during the occupation, then during the liberation)?
2. To plan the liberation of the right-bank Kherson region (and this is inevitable, since this is the territory of the Russian Federation) without taking into account our losses when forcing the Dnieper (minefields, bunkers, ditches, etc., etc., which the Armed Forces of Ukraine will erect)? Where will you take people for such an operation? At the general spring mobilization?
Several opinions on the topic of Kherson
[Chernovec] Kholmogorov (Russian publicist) writes:
In my film about 1812 there is a whole chapter about "difficult decisions."
The main thing to remember is that they were really difficult. This nonsense has now formed in hindsight that Napoleon was lured to Moscow and merrily surrendered. In fact, the army could well have collapsed at the moment of surrender - mass desertion, the despair of officers.
So it’s not worth imagining yourself as Kutuzovs. Moreover, the level of trust in the current system is many times lower than in the then one. A credit history of solid surrenders, goodwill gestures, regroupings and scraps won't be long.
The main motif discussed in the blogs is "we will retreat and a truce will be concluded with us." No. If we are so weak and want a truce so much that we are ready to surrender cities of the level of Kherson, then we, as a nation, are not capable of combat, and for enemies this is a reason to continue to finish us off. Such a gesture will not become a path to peace (even obscene), it will become a signal to finish off.
Fighterbomber (former military pilot):
How would you write a post that everything is fine and according to plan. But no matter how it was, but today the first city of our country in the last almost 80 years was given to the enemy.
It is necessary, it is not necessary, the need is there, or something, but you can’t argue against the facts. We give half of the city to the Khokhol or 1/654 of it, it doesn't matter. Kherson given. Was passed. Left. I hope we release him. I hope to pay for it with little blood.
But I don’t understand what kind of operation this is, during which the city of Russia is given to the enemy? Was it ever like this? Where? Is this the last city to be left? Is it according to plan or not? Maybe it's time to call a spade a spade with appropriate solutions. Maybe it's time for war?
Roman Saponkov (military commissar who worked in the Kherson direction):
"The guys left after a political decision. Therefore, I ask you not to blame the army for withdrawing from the right bank. God forbid that we do not roll back from the borders of Crimea.
I will not say anything about the top leadership of the country and the army. I hope they realize the gravity of the consequences. I have no doubt that they will come."
Andrey Medvedev (Russian journalist, vice speaker of the Moscow City Duma):
Since yesterday evening, I have been asked dozens of times:
“What kind of leak is this? What kind of negotiations are going on and what did we use Kherson for? At what level have traitors settled down with us? Well, and so on.
This suggests that people do not believe politicians, military, official statements - and, frankly, there are reasons for this. If we are at war, then we are at war, and not twist all sorts of Istanbuls.
I have already written that for all of us, for people, it is not deprivation that is terrible. And if it turns out that everything is in vain. This is the main horror. But now is not the case.
...
To win, we first need to leave pride, and stop thinking that everything is fine with us. We must learn to recognize the realities, and discard unnecessary illusions. We must prepare ourselves for a long, hard plowing. The state must also change. To win it is necessary to change the economy, to destroy the bureaucracy. And yes, name the guilty and punish.
Yesterday we left the Russian city. It hurts. The more painful the lesson, the faster the learning. Has everyone realized that everything is serious with us and now there is nowhere to retreat?
Victory doesn't come easy. But there is no way to win.
It seems that only one Stalin was a fool?
[Chernovec] If anything, in the title of the irony, Joseph Vissarionovich never gave up Moscow. And he did not withdraw troops to the left bank of the Volga in order to beg "peace talks" from the Nazis.
Stalin did not exchange for "gestures of good will." Not like today's spineless and spineless old boys who have already gesticulated.
Drainage in Kherson turned out to be even faster than I thought. I expected (and this was a pessimistic forecast, which seemed categorically impossible to many) that this would happen on November 11-14. Moreover, I naively believed that this would happen at least under the guise of an attack, an offensive by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
No. Even the "attack of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" was not needed.
But no. Stupidly and uncontested handed over themselves. November 9, ahead of schedule.
We went to a low bank, which is easy to shell from the Ukrainian coast and can flood.
But now we have the Kherson hero, on whose decision it depended to leave the city. And this is not Shoigu and Surovikin, who in this case were only following orders.
The new Kherson hero lost ALL his authority in just one day. And you can't put it back in.
|
