Bombed bridges, Himars rocket launchers: kyiv's strategy to retake Kherson

It is a strategic bridge for access to a city that is just as strategic.

The Ukrainian army bombed, on the night of Tuesday July 26 to Wednesday July 27, the Antonovsky bridge which connects the city of Kherson to the southern bank of the Dnieper and the rest of this region almost entirely controlled by Russia.

This is not the first time Ukraine has targeted the structure, in what increasingly looks like preparations to launch an offensive to retake the southern Ukrainian city.

Rockets had already damaged the Antonovsky Bridge for the first time on July 19, prompting the warning of Russian military commentators about the risk of seeing troops stationed in Kherson cut off from supply lines. 

The Antonovsky Bridge in sight

“The [Russian] occupiers must learn to swim to cross the Dnieper River.

Or else they agree to leave Kherson as long as they still have the opportunity,” Mykhaïlo Podoliak, adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, wrote on Twitter on Wednesday July 27.

The salvoes launched on Wednesday did not destroy the Antonovsky bridge, but the holes that these rockets caused mean that “only light vehicles can still circulate there and the Russian forces on the spot have closed access to the trucks which ensured the delivery of resupply,” summarizes Sim Tack, a military analyst for Forces Analysis, a conflict monitoring firm.

>> 

The Ukrainians did not just target the Antonovsky Bridge.

The latter – by its length (1.4 km) – represents the main gateway to Kherson from the south, but “the Ukrainian army also shelled another small bridge northeast of Kherson which overlooks an arm of the Dnieper River,” notes Sim Tack. 

This is another important access route to the city for Russians.

It is through there that they “pass the supplies and the troops arriving from Nova Kharkova”, explains the military analyst.

This city on the southern bank of the Dnieper more than 70 km east of Kherson is home to the second bridge that connects the two banks of the river. 

Attrition rather than direct confrontation

The Ukrainians were reluctant to attack this crossing point directly because “it adjoins a major power station and the risk of damaging it was too great”, asserts Sim Tack. 

The Russian army has grasped the purpose of the Ukrainian maneuver and “they have built and are using pontoon bridges to mitigate the risk of running out of supplies”, observes Aliyev Huseyn, specialist in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict at the University of Glasgow.

But these structures “are much more fragile and narrow than traditional bridges, which means that the delivery of supplies will be much slower”, estimates this expert.

But Kherson will not be recaptured only by bombing bridges.

“At some point, troops will have to enter the city,” confirms Glen Grant, a senior analyst at the Baltic Security Foundation and specialist in Russian military issues. 

This is why most of the media describe these bombardments as a start before the main course that would be a vast Ukrainian offensive against Russian troops weakened by the lack of supplies.

But this scenario, which would involve major and probably bloody fighting in the streets of Kherson, is not favored by the experts interviewed by France 24. “The priority of the Ukrainian army is to minimize the loss of men as much as possible , especially since the troops gathered in this region are among the best equipped and prepared and kyiv has no desire to sacrifice any if there is a way to do otherwise”, summarizes Aliyev Huseyn.

“Ukraine will instead rely on attrition, continuing to methodically bombard the access points to the city until the Russians are forced to withdraw most of the troops due to lack of necessary supplies.

Then they will return to town where they will only have to confront the forces that remained to cover the retreat of the Russian soldiers”, explains Sim Tack.

The crucial role of Himars rocket launchers

A more patient strategy to limit human losses “which would not have been possible without the American Himars”, assures Aliyev Huseyn.

These rocket launchers are much more accurate than the artillery used by the Ukrainian army.

“To get the same highly targeted damage to bridges, the Ukrainians would have needed a lot more ammo, and time with their traditional artillery, so this approach probably couldn't have been used,” says Sim Tack.

In fact, the Himars – described in a large number of articles in the international press as weapons “that can make a difference” – “probably played a large part in the Ukrainian decision to launch a more general counter-offensive in the oblast [ administrative region] of Kherson”, judge Aliyev Huseyn. 

They allow kyiv to avoid the much dreaded direct confrontation with a numerically superior Russian army as much as possible.

“The Ukrainian strategy is to first use the Himars to strike deep into Russian command centers and ammunition depots in order to force them to retreat, which leads to a disorganization of the communication and supply chains”, details Aliyev Huseyn . 

Impossible to pursue such a goal without the brand new American equipment.

“All the Russians were doing so far was positioning the ammunition depots and commands out of range of traditional Ukrainian artillery,” says Glen Grant.

But the American Himars have a range of 80 km, at least twice as much as other rocket launchers used on the front. 

Which means that the Ukrainian army is advancing slowly but surely.

“It gives the impression of a counter-attack that is done in fits and starts, with Ukrainians behaving like hunting dogs on the prowl and ready to pounce as soon as they sense weakness in the enemy ”, describes Glen Grant.

Towards a “turning point in the war”?

This strategy has already enabled Ukraine to take back some villages and “to also progress north of the Kherson region around the town of Vysokopillya”, stresses Sim Tack.

But the capture of Kherson “would probably represent a turning point in the war”, believes Glen Grant.

This city is, in fact, the only Ukrainian regional capital outside the Donbass in the hands of Russia.

Moscow has deployed significant means to “russify” this city, installing occupation authorities there, establishing the ruble as the “official” currency and encouraging officials to go there to ensure the continuity of the state. Russian on the spot.

If Ukraine kicks the Russians out of Kherson “it would be impossible for Moscow to continue pretending that all is well in Ukraine”, notes Aliyev Huseyn.

Such a loss would represent “a blow to the morale of a Russian army which is already not very motivated”, underlines Glen Grant.

This could potentially give the Ukrainian army a decisive advantage throughout the region.

If kyiv manages to take back the whole of the oblast, “the country would again have access to several ports on the Black Sea which could facilitate Ukrainian grain exports”, notes Aliyev Huseyn.

Above all, Russia would be relegated to the other side of the Dnieper River, which would provide the Ukrainian army with a natural line of protection.

"kyiv could thus probably release some of the troops mobilized in this region to reassign them to other fronts, such as in the Donbass or the Zaporijjia region", assures Sim Tack.

Moscow is not unaware of this risk and it is, perhaps, partly the reason why Russia has slowed down its war effort in the Donbass.

Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of the Council of defense and national security of Ukraine, affirmed that Moscow is redeploying a maximum of troops” towards Kherson.

The summary of the

France 24 week invites you to come back to the news that marked the week

I subscribe

Take international news everywhere with you!

Download the France 24 app

google-play-badge_EN