“freeze line”? (Not at all expert on military-related terminology)
Maybe it’s meant literally, as in the river might freeze over the winter and allow crossing on foot? Just my WAG.
even worse … from the information from typical local channelss, there is a mix of russian troops that:
- have already run (and are now highly concentrated at the few crossing points getting shelled very hard)
- ones that are withdrawing (those will be panicking heavily)
- troops that have NO knowledge of the withdrawing orders - which are still fighting (mind you, those do not seem to be the SS-Totenkopf hard-core troops, but regular troops w/out comunications doing their day-to-day duties)
oh boy…
The general consensus has been that Russia is attempting to achieve a stalemate in positions that will hold through the winter while offensive operations are difficult. I think “freeze line” is intended to reflect that concept, i.e. the Russian plan was to withdraw from the city, harden a defensive position along the river, and then settle in for a few months of rest and resupply. If these rumors are accurate, that plan has fallen apart.
I assumed it meant a location where the fighting freezes, so the new stabilized front line, or potential new de facto border between Russia and Ukraine when the war becomes a “frozen conflict”. The Russians couldn’t hold on to to Kherson, north of the Dneiper River, and now they’re at risk of losing territory to the south of it, is how I understood it.
Thanks. That does make sense.
I think it’s too far south and too big for freeze-over.
I hope the Russian commanders realize they may have an opportunity to retake Kherson City in the Spring.
It wouldn’t be in their interest now to flatten the city with artillery and missiles.
Will they think it through?
What kind of prize was Mariupol? There’s almost nothing left.
They’ve already attacked the bridge. By “unconventional” means, sure. But then, they’re beating what was once thought to be the second-most-powerful military in the world. Everything about this war is unconventional.
This war stopped being about what was in Russia’s interests a long time ago.
Yeah, I realize it’s almost a certainty the Russians have something very destructive planned for Kherson City.
They made a effort to relocate civilians for a reason.
I’ve seen that no “green corridor” was requested by Russia in order to evacuate troops from Kherson. Even if it was, why would Ukraine agree to such a thing? You have an invading force on the run with an opportunity to inflict heavy damage. Russia has shown complete disdain for Ukrainian lives. It seems that they are about to reap what was sown. War is brutal and Ukraine should show no mercy to troops that are doing anything other than surrendering. Also, I read of an account where a Ukrainian commander reached such an agreement when surrounded by Russians in 2014. The Russian commander promptly reneged and many Ukrainians were killed. Paybacks are a bitch.
Reminds me of the retreat from Kuwait City. The Iraqis had commited horrific crimes against the population and looted heavily. Payback came on the highway back to Iraq. A lot of equipment and soldiers were wiped out.
Pretty much broke the Iraq army. They were never the same.
Don’t know if Ukraine can inflict as much damage against the Russians.
Kherson is only on the right bank of the Dnieper, correct?
What is on the opposite side? farmland? smaller towns?
More or less. The historically significant town of Oleshky sits roughly opposite Kherson, but a little farther back from the river proper behind a band of estuarine marsh and a tributary. There are scattered other little settlements, farmland and a lot of steppe/sand. Total population of the old Oleshky Raion was ~70,000 pre-refugee, so a pretty lightly settled area. Like most of the Kherson oblast, really.
I’m confused.
It looks to me like Kherson is on the left bank, and Oleshky is on the right. But I use the convention that it’s relative to North.
I understand, from a previous posting some time ago on this thread, that left and right are always determined by the direction of current flow, not compass direction.
To a geographer, it’s like port and starboard is to a mariner.
I learnt it in Paris.
That’s the second new thing I learned today.
Ah, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. I never really thought about it, not having to talk about “left banks” and “right banks” except for the famous Parisian left bank, but how else would a relative term like “left” or “right” work without reference to something, and flow of river makes the most sense in this context. “East” and “west” doesn’t really make sense, and, besides, wouldn’t you just say “east bank” and “west bank”. Light bulb moment for me.