By Pepe Escobar
November 13, 2022:
Information Clearing House
-- The
announcement of the Kherson Retreat may have
signaled one of the gloomiest days of the
Russian Federation since 1991.
Leaving the right bank of the Dnieper to set
up a defense line on the left bank may spell out
total military sense. General Armageddon
himself, since his first day on the job, had
hinted this might have been inevitable.
As it stands in the chessboard, Kherson is in
the “wrong” side of the Dnieper. All residents
of Kherson Oblast – 115,000 people in total –
who wanted to be relocated to safer latitudes
have been evacuated from the right bank.
General Armageddon knew that was inevitable
for several reasons:
no mobilization after the initial SMO plans
hit the dust; destruction of strategic bridges
across the Dnieper – complete with a three-month
methodical Ukrainian pounding of bridges,
ferries, pontoons and piers; no second
bridgehead to the north of Kherson or to the
west (towards Odessa or Nikolaev) to conduct an
offensive.
And then, the most important reason: massive
weaponization coupled with NATO de facto running
the war translated into enormous Western
superiority in reconnaissance, communications
and command and control.
In the end, the Kherson Retreat may be a
relatively minor tactical loss. Yet politically,
it’s an unmitigated disaster, a devastating
embarrassment.
Kherson is a Russian city. Russians have lost
– even if temporarily – the capital of a brand
new territory attached to the Federation.
Russian public opinion will have tremendous
problems absorbing the news.
The list of negatives is considerable. Kiev
forces secure their flank and may free up forces
to go against Donbass. Weaponizing by the
collective West gets a major boost. HIMARS can
now potentially strike targets in Crimea.
The optics are horrendous. Russia’s image
across the Global South is severely tarnished;
after all, this move amounts to abandoning
Russian territory – while serial Ukrainian war
crimes instantly disappear from the major
“narrative”.
At a minimum, the Russians a long time ago
should have reinforced their major strategic
advantage bridgehead on the west side of the
Dnieper so that it could hold – short of a
widely forecasted Kakhovka Dam flood. And yet
the Russians also ignored the dam bombing threat
for months. That spells out terrible planning.
Now Russian forces will have to conquer
Kherson all over again. And in parallel
stabilize the frontlines; draw definitive
borders; and then strive to “demilitarize”
Ukrainian offensives for good, either via
negotiation or carpet bombing.
It’s quite revealing that an array of NATO
intel types, from analysts to retired Generals,
are suspicious of General Armageddon’s move:
they see it as an elaborate trap, or as a French
military analyst put it, “a massive deception
operation”. Classic Sun Tzu. That has been duly
incorporated as the official Ukrainian
narrative.
So, to quote Twin Peaks, that
American pop culture subversive classic, “the
owls are not what they seem”. If that’s the
case, General Armageddon would be looking to
severely overstretch Ukrainian supply lines;
seduce them into exposure; and then engage in a
massive turkey shoot.
So it’s either Sun Tzu; or a deal is in the
wings, coinciding with the G20 next week in
Bali.
The art
of the deal
Well, some sort of deal seems to have been
struck between Jake Sullivan and Patrushev.
No one really knows the details, even those
with access to flamboyant 5th Column
informants in Kiev. But yes – the deal seems to
include Kherson. Russia would keep Donbass but
not advance towards Kharkov and Odessa. And NATO
expansion would be definitely frozen. A
minimalist deal.
That would explain why Patrushev was able to
board a plane to Tehran simultaneous to the
announcement of the Kherson Retreat, and take
care, quite relaxed, of very important strategic
partnership business with Ali Shamkhani,
Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security
Council.
The deal may have also been the inbuilt
“secret” in Maria Zakharova’s announcement that
“we’re ready for negotiations”.
The Russians will leave the Dnieper riverbank
in a managed military retreat. That would not be
possible without managed military-to-military
negotiations.
These back channel negotiations have been
going on for weeks. The messenger is Saudi
Arabia. The US aim, in the short term, would be
towards a sort of Minsk 3 accord – with
Istanbul/Riyadh attached.
No one is paying the slightest attention to
coke clown Zelensky. Sullivan went to Kiev to
present a fait accompli – of sorts.
The Dnieper will be – in thesis – the settled
and negotiated frontline.
Kiev would have to swallow a frozen line of
contact in Zaporizhye, Donetsk and Lugansk –
with Kiev receiving electricity from Zaporozhye,
hence cease shelling its infrastructure.
The US would come up with a loan of $50
billion plus part of the confiscated – i.e.
stolen – Russian assets to “rebuild” Ukraine.
Kiev would receive modern air defense systems.
There’s no doubt Moscow will not go along
with any of these provisions.
Note that all this coincides with the outcome
of the US elections – where the Dems did not
exactly lose.
Meanwhile Russia is accumulating more and
more gains in the battle for Bakhmut.
There are no illusions whatsoever in Moscow
that this crypto-Minsk 3 would be respected by
the “non-agreement capable” Empire.
Jake Sullivan is a 45-year-old lawyer with
zero strategic background and “experience”
amounting to campaigning for Hillary Clinton.
Patrushev can eat him for breakfast, lunch,
dinner and late night snack – and vaguely
“agree” to anything.
So why are the Americans desperate to offer a
deal? Because they may be sensing the next
Russian move with the arrival of General Winter
should be capable of conclusively winning the
war on Moscow’s terms. That would include
slamming the Polish border shut via a long arrow
move from Belarus downwards. With weaponizing
supply lines cut, Kiev’s fate is sealed.
Deal or no deal, General Winter is coming to
town – ready to entertain his guest of honor Sun
Tzu with so many new dishes at their dinner
table.
Views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Reader financed- No
Advertising - No Government Grants -
No Algorithm - This
Is Independent
