"The Russian army entrenches itself", but does not retreat very far from Kherson

• Russian General Surovikin proposed the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kherson, a decision approved yesterday by Moscow.

• Since then, kyiv has been wary.

  “It is impossible to believe the words of the Russians.

  With them you always have to be ready for anything,” said Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Malyar.

  Ukraine fears in particular that Russian soldiers have remained in the city to take the Ukrainian army by surprise by delivering a guerrilla force.

• “The first satellite images and official information confirm that Russian troops are withdrawing to the left bank of the Dnieper,” however, former journalist Gaël Guichard told

  20 Minutes

  .

  But according to her, it is difficult to detect Russian intentions for the future from this strategic troop movement.

A few weeks ago, Kherson became "officially" Russian in the eyes of the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin ensuring that it was part "forever" of the Russian Federation after the annexation referendums.

Since then, the Russian forces have evacuated the city to the population, before announcing their own retreat.

Enough to feed some doubts in kyiv.

So, does this announcement hide a trap set by Moscow?

What are Russia's real intentions?

Should the general staff tremble before this new setback?

interviewed Gaël Guichard, a former journalist specializing in Ukraine and Russia, who took part before the war in an OSCE observation mission in Lugansk.

Can we really believe the Russian army when it announces its withdrawal from Kherson?

A priori yes.

The first satellite images and official information confirm that Russian troops are withdrawing to the left bank of the Dnieper, in the villages of Olechky and Kardashynka.

But they do not leave Kherson Oblast.

How to explain this decision?

It is presented as strategic because although Russia claims to intercept more than 80% of Ukrainian missiles, the safety of the population, troops and conscripts is a priority.

To guarantee it, it was necessary, according to General Sourovikine, to take refuge on the left bank.

But contrary to what we see circulating, there is no argument on the fragility of the bridges and constructions on the Dnieper, and on a risk of flooding, which has been advanced.

Could it still be a trap to attract the Ukrainian army?

The Russians used to say that the plan will be shown by the war, in other words they don't really plan, but they put in place a strategy once on the ground.

Except that in this war, we never see their strategy.

Do soldiers stay on the right bank to carry out operations, a guerrilla war?

It is possible, but we are on conjectures, on what a war can become, and not on what we know of what is happening on the ground.

If so, no information will leak out of the Kremlin anyway.

What consequences can this withdrawal have in the Kremlin and within the general staff?

First, the withdrawal was approved by the Minister for the Armed Forces.

It is always possible to see heads roll, the general being denounced in two or three months, but today the decision is not called into question.

On the other hand, there is a form of incomprehension from part of the population, a month after Vladimir Putin's speech on Kherson, which is "forever" part of Russian territory.

From there to disavow the strategy of Vladimir Putin?

There is real support from part of the population for this offensive.

People have really been convinced by the propaganda that if the Russian army backs down, they're going to be overrun by NATO troops.

But Putin is not in a situation like in the early 2000s. There is no outcry from soldiers' mothers, like during the war in Chechnya.

Moreover, those who said that the mobilization would mark a turning point were wrong: there are certainly young people who do not want to be enlisted, but many accept it for various reasons, because they are offered a better salary, because they are afraid of possible criminal reprisals which in reality do not exist, or by conviction.

So entrenching yourself on the left bank of the Dnieper, is it a way to pass the winter by restocking?

A basis for negotiation?

It is very difficult to make predictions.

A priori, Putin will not go to the negotiating table, because for him, accepting a compromise where he would lose part of the ground acquired would be incomprehensible to the Russian population.

There is real support.

We find it in the fact that the soldiers testify to the lack of equipment, clothing and ammunition.

One of the solutions is to appeal to the population, and people give.

There are aid funds to buy thick socks, winter sleeping bags, in short, vital things.

The withdrawal is probably a way to avoid too much slaughter and to ensure the supply of conscripts with equipment suitable for winter.

But only time will tell if the Russians go on the offensive again.

World

War in Ukraine: Kherson in murky mud and 18 billion from the EU

World

War in Ukraine: Dragon's teeth for defense "in depth" or compromise on the sly?

• War in Ukraine

• World

• Moscow

• Russia

• Kherson

• Vladimir Poutine