Twee
deelartikelen, een uit de New York Times en een uit de Washington Post, met hun interpretatie van de strijd in Oekraïne en rond Kherson in het bijzonder. Wat deze kranten bieden is natuurlijk ook een interpretatie, net als die wij opbouwen in dit topic. Ook nu krijg ik de indruk dat ook de Amerikanen op het vlak van regie op de achterbank zitten en dat Oekraïne de lead heeft. Dit wil niet zeggen dat Oekraïne geen feedback krijgt van de Amerikanen, maar zeker ook de Engelsen op haar strategie.
Ik krijg de indruk dat het (inmiddels herhaalde

) vernieling van de brug bij Nova Kakhovka gisteren (ben ik de enige die "Nova Kakhovka" goed vindt "bekken"?) van belang is om in het achterhoofd te houden bij de timing van de artikelen. Het Washington Post artikel is van eergisteren, het New York Times artikel is van gisteren, net nadat die aanval op de brug moet hebben plaatsgevonden.
Washington Post
On the Kherson front lines, little sign of a Ukrainian offensive
Enkele kenmerkende passages uit het artikel (maar oordeel vooral zelf, wij leven goddank in een vrij land waarin dat kan):
For weeks, Western intelligence and military analysts have predicted that a Ukrainian campaign to retake the strategic port city of Kherson and surrounding territory is imminent. But in trenches less than a mile from Russia’s positions in the area, Ukrainian soldiers hunker down from an escalating onslaught of artillery, with little ability to advance.
“They’ve dug in,” said Oleksandr Vilkul, head of the military administration in Kryvyi Rih, after returning from a trip to inspect the front lines on Sunday. “We know that they are trying to fortify their positions. The enemy has significantly increased its artillery along the entire line,” he said of the 60-mile long front line, after returning from visiting positions on Sunday.
And Russia has been reinforcing. About 3,000 troops have arrived in the Kherson region over the past week alone, bringing to at least 15,000 the number of Russian troops on the western bank of the Dnieper River, the intelligence adviser said.
Most of them are elite airborne troops who are helping to bolster exhausted Russian forces who have been manning the front line for months, said Kirill Mikhailov, a Kyiv-based analyst with the Conflict Intelligence Team, a Russian research and investigative group.
The forces around Kherson city constitute Russia’s only foothold on that side of the river, a natural defensive barrier that carves through Ukraine and requires supply routes to pass through several highly vulnerable chokeholds.
Outgunned, Ukraine is also using hybrid tactics. In the city, much of the local population is hostile to occupation, said Konstantin Ryzhenko, a Ukrainian journalist in hiding there. Russian soldiers are already not visible on the streets of the city in fear of attacks, he said.
Given the strike in Crimea, Russia’s hold over Kherson is in jeopardy, said Dmitri Alperovitch, chairman of Silverado Policy Accelerator, a Washington-based think tank.“I think the Russians will pull out of Kherson soon,” he said. “It’s becoming untenable — really hard to resupply forces.”
New York Times
With New Weaponry, Ukraine Is Subtly Shifting Its War Strategy“We do not have the resources to litter the territory with bodies and shells, as Russia does,” Ukraine’s defense minister, Oleksii Reznikov, said in an interview this past week with Pravda, a Ukrainian news media outlet. “Therefore it is necessary to change tactics, to fight in a different way.”
The strategy seems to be producing some results. While the Ukrainian military has not made major territorial gains, it has managed to slow the Russian advance across the country, for now, at least, and stanch the heavy losses Ukraine was suffering in recent months, which had led to wavering morale and some soldiers even deserting their platoons.
But the Russians have continued to apply pressure in the east and the south on Ukrainian frontline positions, with some that are slowly buckling. The incremental advances have indicated that despite setbacks from Ukraine’s attacks, the Russian military effort still has enough forces to continue offensive operations.
Ukraine’s efforts in the south represent less a change in approach than an extension, with the aid of new longer-range weapons, of a strategy adopted at the start of the war meant to level the playing field with Russia. With the Russian army far outmatching Ukraine’s forces in the number of troops, weapons and ammunition, Ukraine’s military has had to be innovative and nimble.
But now, supplied with new longer-range artillery pieces, like the American-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket System or HIMARS, Ukraine has been able to slow Russia’s advance and divert some attention to what Ukraine’s generals see as more advantageous territory in the south.
[...]
The idea, according to Ukrainian commanders, is to make conditions so untenable that Russia withdraws across the Dnipro on its own in the face of the expected Ukrainian counterattack.
“Our soldiers are inventive and progressive, while the Russians are working by the book, deploying battle formations as it was laid out in the Soviet Union,” Vitaliy Kim, the head of the Mykolaiv region’s military administration, said in an interview last week. “Our guys have read this book and understand it perfectly well, and are using it for their own goals.”
While the approach has been aided by the long-range Western weapons, it has also been encouraged by Western officials. Mr. Reznikov, Ukraine’s defense minister, said this week that the American and British defense ministers had both offered him a piece of advice: “The Russians use meat-grinder tactics — if you plan to fight them with the same tactics, we will not be able to help you.”
De indruk die beide artikelen mij geven is dat Oekraïne druk doende is een antwoord te formuleren op de Russische offensieve overcapaciteit. Oekraïne moet hierin weg bewegen bij het reactief beantwoorden van Russische aanvallen. Door het initiatief te nemen kan ze Rusland in onbalans brengen en regie pakken in de strijd. Het orkestreren van dergelijke gecoördineerde plannen zal vooral veel vragen van de Oekraïense commandostructuur en een goede coördinatie tussen alle gevechtsonderdelen en -functies.
Het is al eerder door anderen in dit topic geuit, maar ook door Amerikaanse deskundigen, Oekraïne kan zeker op het vlak van die centrale coördinatie en communicatie nog stappen zetten. En dit is niet erg. Het Oekraïense leger verschilt als licht en donker van het Russische. Tactisch is het zonder twijfel superieur. Haar uitdaging is nu om dat dat strategische niveau toe te voegen. Iedere grote strateeg uit onze geschiedenis heeft ergens moeten beginnen. Is dat voor Oekraïne nu, dan is dat oké. Met de middelen die Oekraïne nu al heeft kan ze met een uitgekookte strategie een verschil maken. Het opdraven van de Russen naar de Kherson regio bewijst ons dat wel. Breng de vijand in onbalans, en zorg dat je kan toeslaan
tijdens die onbalans. Dat eerste is met vlag en wimpel gelukt, nu dat tweede erbij.