“Russia to evacuate civilians from Kherson as Ukrainians close in”

1. Push along the Dnipro to recapture Kherson
2. Advance south to isolate Russian forces in Kherson and threaten Crimea
3. Push south toward Mariupol to cut off Russian troops to the west

“Russia will help evacuate civilians from the Kherson region after Kremlin-backed authorities there asked for aid following a Ukrainian counter-offensive.

“The government took the decision to organise assistance for the departure of residents of the (Kherson) region to other regions of the country,” Russian Deputy Prime Minister Marat Khusnullin said on state television.

Russian forces are likely attempting to consolidate a new front line west from the village of Mylove, according to British intelligence.

A grinding Ukrainian counter-offensive, launched in September, has recaptured swathes of land in the southern Kherson region, with Kyiv’s forces edging towards the regional capital, Kherson city.

It was claimed that Vladimir Putin’s troops in the southern region had been forced to retreat some 20 kilometres since early October.”

Comment: How about this for a deal – Russia withdraws from all of Ukraine except Crimea where a co-dominium with Ukraine is established while at the same time the ethnic Russian bits of the SE Ukraine are made autonomous regions of Ukraine?

Russia to evacuate civilians from Kherson as Ukrainians close in (telegraph.co.uk)

This entry was posted in Russia, Ukraine Crisis. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to “Russia to evacuate civilians from Kherson as Ukrainians close in”

  1. James Nawrocki says:

    But then what to do about long term Ukrainian security concerns?
    The Ukes will never feel safe unless they are in NATO, and the Russians say that NATO membership means WWIII.
    And then there is the issue about Ukrainian rebuilding. Was it all a big mistake and Russia owes nothing for all of the death and destruction they have wrought?
    But I guess you have to start some where.

  2. Valuenotfound says:

    As long as there is an endless supply of arms and money, Zelenskyy has no reason to negotiate. And there’s no reason to believe the arms and money would stop flowing even if Zelenskyy wanted them to.

  3. James Nawrocki says:

    Of course.
    I am just worried that without addressing the other concerns, it will be more of a lull between conflicts rather than an enduring and lasting settlement.
    But we have to start some where.

  4. Peter Hug says:

    Personally, I am a fan of the Finnish PM’s approach – Putin’s off ramp is that he can withdraw from all of Ukraine. Short, simple, and to the point.

    • TTG says:

      Peter Hug,

      I’m also a fan of Sanna Marin’s approach. Get out of all Ukrainian territory. I would carry it further and say the sanctions stop at that point. Everything else can be negotiated. Given my obviously biased stand on this conflict, that’s about as even handed as I’m willing to go.

      • Bill Roche says:

        Considering the “Winter War” of ’40 and the Finnish territory stolen by Russia, Marin’s approach is understandable. Two important difference b/t then and now are 1. no one in the entire world helped the Finns. 2. There were no nukes. History is full of what-ifs. What if the Europeans had forcibly said no to Stalin in Finland, no to Hitler in the Sudetenlund, and no to Mussolini in Libya. But everyone said “I didn’t see anything…you see anything?” In a posting a day or two ago I said “its showtime in Easter Europe”. Success for Russia in Ukraine will lead Putin to Estonia. Who cares, Stones are just “l’ill Russians”, right?

      • Peter Hug says:

        I will concede that you have a definite opinion, but I’m not sure you’re biased – possibly because I pretty much share your opinion.

  5. different clue says:

    Just because Ukraine wants into NATO does not mean that NATO ever has to let them in.

    The peace terms our host has described, plus no NATO membership for Ukraine ever ever ever . . . might satisfy the RussiaGov if it continues getting defeated some. Would the UkraineGov be satisfied? Would various Azovi/Banderi/Pravy Sectorish/ Svobodaform personnel ever permit the UkraineGov, any UkrainGov, to say it was satisfied?

  6. Steve+G says:

    You mean Minsk 1 and two without Crimea.
    Could have been done years ago.
    If this war is about “democracy”’ the
    Crimeans overwhelmingly voted to “rejoin

  7. CSP says:

    We do have to start somewhere, and one would think Putin is primed for peace.

    A very unique security solution would need to be thought up for all involved. Something quite outside the box.

    The response of the West to peace overtures will give the tell. Are the criticisms among many in the West (that NATO seeks only to subjugate Russia) valid?

    The next few months might provide an answer.

  8. AngusinCanada says:

    Sounds a bit like Minsk II? Russia begged and pleaded for that sort of arrangement to avoid conflict. No, that ship has sailed.

  9. TTG says:

    The mass deportation and resettlement of populations has been a common Russian move since the days of the Russian empire. They move the existing population out and replace them with their own settlers. If the Russians move out and take their settlers and any ethnic Russian Ukrainians who want to leave with them, most of the problem is solved.

    • Osorio says:

      “The mass deportation and resettlement of populations has been a common Russian move since the days of the Russian empire.”

      How backwards, they should learn from USians, give the populations some pox infected blankets. Easy. Reckoning day is coming.

  10. LeaNder says:

    Putin is legally a persona non grata in the Ukraine. Thus the US needs to regime change Russia first. But whoever takes over after that may be even worse to deal with .

    Is Putin on the way out?
    The Russian president is vulnerable but circumstances favor an even more belligerent hardliner as his most likely successor.
    October 11, 2022, by Anatol Lieven

    … Equally important, Putin’s remaining in power is a critical obstacle to negotiations for ending the war in Ukraine, which more and more world leaders are declaring is urgently necessary. President Zelensky has signed a decree formally stating that talks with Putin are “impossible,” though he has left open the possibility of future negotiations with Russia. For his part, Putin, by annexing areas of Ukraine occupied by Russia since February (and, bizarrely, some that are not occupied by Russia), has indeed made it virtually impossible for himself to negotiate any kind of compromise, and has also made it much more difficult for any successor to do so.

    …However, since 2014, and indeed historically, the overwhelming majority of Russians have regarded Crimea, and the naval base of Sevastopol, as simply Russian land. A Russian friend, of liberal leanings, compared them to Hawaii and Pearl Harbor (also, he noted, annexed illegally, albeit a longer time ago), and suggested that since Americans would certainly be prepared to threaten or even use nuclear weapons to keep Hawaii American, they should understand Russia’s willingness to do the same over Crimea.

    If the Biden administration wishes to see Putin replaced by a Russian president who is willing to negotiate a compromise in Ukraine, then it must find a way to signal to the Russian establishment that such a compromise is in fact on offer. Official statements by the Ukrainian government vowing to retake Crimea effectively rule out any such compromise and, by the same token, help block any moves within the Russian establishment to find a more liberal successor to Putin — since they imply that this successor would still be faced with the threat of complete defeat.


    Crimea, well yes, dog, tail, poodle and and/or Black Sea Fleet versus forward deposition installations.

    • Barbara Ann says:


      Lieven talks much sense and shoots down Carl Bildt’s mad suggestion for making regime change official US policy. I agree 100% with his final paragraph:

      ..Putin’s failures may still lead to his replacement from within the regime, but it is more likely to be by a nationalist hardliner, who will blame all defeats to date on Putin while waging war to the knife in Ukraine. This is an outcome that the Biden administration should do everything possible to prevent

      Yes, as TTG says, there lies the road to Armageddon. It is vital Putin is offered a way out. My personal suggestion would be self-imposed exile in Dubai (where Musharraf remains to this day btw). With a bit of luck that was on offer when he met MBZ in Saint Petersburg on Tuesday.

      I also agree with Lieven that any workable solution would need to retain Crimea as part of Russia, the rest – let the Russians evacuate the Donbas too so the Ukies can have their victory.

      • Fred says:

        Barbara Ann,

        Will Zelinsky be going with him? Can we force the neocons to go their too? As to Crimea, they’ll need secure water as part of any settlement:
        “Ukraine cut off the fresh water supply to Crimea by damming a canal that had supplied 85% of the peninsula’s needs before Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014.”

        • Leith says:

          If Russians in Crimea needs Ukrainian water then let them pay for it “through the nose”. No persons in Crimea went thirsty when the canal was dammed. But why does Crimea need to grow rice and melons and other water intensive crops? Even wine grapes and orchards that are grown in Crimea require more water than is available locally. Ukraine would be glad to sell food to Crimea. All Putin has to do is ask after his troops go home. If he objects then let him build desalinization plants, or a bigger pipeline from the Kuban.

          • Fred says:


            True, but closing the irrigation flow was meant as a provocation. So success to whoever thought up that idea years back. I believe OPEC is following a similar strategy with oil to the one you suggest with Ukrainina water; one which Biden and all the rest of us learned about a few days ago. “Drill baby drill” would solve that particular problem, but then there would be no great ‘reset’ nor a ‘4th industrial revolution’.

          • TTG says:


            The North Crimean Canal is wholly Ukrainian. It wasn’t started until Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine. I know, it’s still the USSR. It would be a different proposition if Ukraine was stopping the flow of a natural waterway. But I think your comparison to OPEC and oil is apt. They did it in the 70s and they’re doing it again. Should be ample reason for any country to move towards self-sufficiency in energy, food and everything else for that matter.

            I thought we were self-sufficient in oil and gas. If we’re producing our own fuel, why are our fuel prices rising? Why are US producers compelled to raise US prices? Looks like pure corporate and investor greed to me.

          • Fred says:


            When you go to buy eggs do you get them as the J6 2020 price or the current market price? Same question on price, but with your favourite microbrew, shoes, or that daily newspaper? You do have experience working post government? As to oil, How did Trump manage to make America energy independent?

          • TTG says:


            I can understand much of the price increases. Chicken feed, electricity, water, real estate taxes, even the disinfecting egg wash cost more. Chances are the farmer isn’t making a cent more from those eggs. But corporations are raking in big profits. Why is that necessary beyond the simple reason of greed?

            The road to American energy independence began in 2006 under Bush the Elder, continued at the same rate under Obama. Trump had the good sense not to interfere with this. The oil and gas industry, which I’ve been railing against, is the real reason for our energy independence. They invented fracking and other extraction methods, not the government. Increased efficiency and conservation are also helping. Even renewables are contributing.

          • Leith says:

            Fred –

            It wasn’t a provocation. It was done because Putin’s puppet in Crimea refused to pay the water bill. Besides Crimeans did well without it for eight years. They built and stocked several reservoirs. Plus when the bridge over the Kerch Strait was finished in 2019 they added a pipeline bringing from the Kuban River. That is probably toast since last Saturday.

        • Fred says:


          The road to American energy independence began when kerosine began to replace whale oil in lighting and electricity (from coal fired power plants) began to generate electricity. Not to mention the internal combustion engine (such as used in rail roads) began to replace draft animals in transportation and petroleum production further lowered the cost. The reality of Obama’s wonderful policies are not what you wish to remember them to be.

          “But corporations are raking in big profits. ”
          I assure you Pfizer isn’t the only one, or the greediest. There are plenty of companies that are not making profits and lack of greed isn’t the reason. A glance at the latest earnings reports will show that. There are many private companies failing that are not doing so out of either greed, lack of greed, or even mismanagement.

          • TTG says:


            We were energy independent in the days of whale oil, wood and coal. At some point we became overly dependent on foreign oil. It was oilman Bush who started truly reversing the trend. Obama and Trump just kept singing the same tune of energy independence.

            Sure many companies fail, mostly small companies and start ups. They die like fruit flies. They always have and always will. Big corporations at the top of the economic food chain are raking in profits. When the world went into lockdown, their profits shrunk. That doesn’t happen too often.

  11. Lars says:

    The only permanent solution is the unconditional surrender by Russia. It worked well with Germany and Japan. But that will probably not happen, so at a minimum, Russia will have to leave all of Ukraine, including Crimea, and will also have to compensate for destruction, especially civilian, and turn over all the war criminals. Otherwise, at some point, they will try to invade another neighbor.

    As it is, they face a serious military defeat, with all the attendant domestic problems that will arise. The federation may also break up and continue further unrest. If that spreads to central Asia, China and India will be increasingly concerned.

    I suspect that as time goes on, many Russians will see Putin as THE problem and not the solution and then things will get interesting. Possibly not in a good way.

    • TTG says:


      I don’t see unconditional surrender or regime change as a workable, or reachable, solution. Pushing for that is practically a sure road to nuclear Armageddon. Also, who’s going to do it? I’m pretty sure Russians will defend Russia with the same fervor as Ukrainians defend Ukraine.

      • Lars says:

        As I said, I don’t think that will happen. But I also think it will be arduous for Moscow to keep the federation together with increasing external, but more importantly, internal tensions. I am sure any military threat to Russia proper will motivate, but the problems will come in the rest of the federation.

    • Bill Roche says:

      Lars; IMHO the “sea change” that has to happen is in the minds of the average Russian. Only when the Russian mind accepts that their lives w/b better when they are just Russia and NOT an empire will there be long term change in Eastern Europe. Imagine the contributions to world civilization which could be made by Russians, in addition to the many Already Made, if their masters in Moscow would just set Them Free.

    • Fred says:

      Whose army will be fighting its way to Moscow, after destroying the Russian armed forces, to impose that unconditional surrender?

  12. Bill Roche says:

    Immediately after the Feb invasion several of your correspondents suggested Ukraine give up Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea for peace. I was one of those, and I think, so were you. But Ukraine’s fought hard and can expect more. So let the Russians do their ethnic cleansing thing in Donetsk and Luhansk, and a N/S line be drawn down Crimea a’la Cyprus. Who gets Sevastopol? That’s not worth more war. There is deep water elsewhere along the Crimean coast. Ukraine wins something much much bigger then ownership of Sevastopol. It gains Russian admission, that Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Ukrainians have fought for this since 1914 … finally. As for NATO, an Austria/Finland understanding by Ukraine and a unremitting commitment to military strength will force Russia to respect her neutrality. Hey you want peace? I do.

  13. Leith says:

    Pat – Peace would be a good thing.

    I like autonomy for parts of the SE. But only if those Raions or Districts in the west and north of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts are allowed a counter-referendum to leave and become unified with Dnipropetrovsk or Kharkiv Oblasts. They held one in 2014 and 70% voted yes because they wanted nothing to do with Russia or the separatists. The problem would be that those regions have been occupied for almost eight months now, and many of the people there have been murdered or kidnapped by the occupiers.

    Co-Dominium sounds good. Have you been reading Jerry Pournelle’s science fiction novels? But would Putin or a hardline replacement ever agree to splitting Crimea with Ukraine? I have doubts.

  14. walrus says:

    I like Col. Langs solution. Face must be preserved as well. If you could swing a China/Taiwan rapprochement as well even better.

    However the solution is unacceptable to the Borg because it recognizes Russia as a co-equal and implicitly also legitimises, OBOR, SCO and BRICS for starters as well as admitting that there are limits to the application of neo liberal thought (I.e: Woke/LBGTQI culture, MMT, diversity. green crap, etc.). In other words it would reaffirm Westphalian nationalism – which is anathema to the green / NWO Davos crowd.

    • Bill Roche says:

      Walrus I think you have hit on it old boy. Capital idea … its all about 1650; again. So simple but so correct, a peace which continues to recognize/honor Russian/Ukrainian nationalism is a defeat for the “one world” crowd.

  15. Mark Logan says:


    I suspect that deal will be viable only if the Russians manage to create a stalemate in the field and would probably need the sweetener of Putin leaving office for the Ukrainians to accept it even then. By all appearances the current mood in Ukraine would not permit any leader the leeway to make it. They will need to be tired of this war before it can happen.

    The issue of Crimea might be solved by reestablishing the arrangement that existed prior to 2014, guaranteed access to Sevastopol for the Russian navy. My understanding is the place has a status something akin to how Texans view the Alamo to Russians. I think it would be wise for the Ukrainians to acknowledge that.

    I would however welcome any peace the Russians and Ukrainians can agree to. Can’t think of a configuration which I wouldn’t.

  16. Valuenotfound says:

    “They will need to be tired of this war before it can happen.”

    Easy. Stop supplying them with weapons and money. Unfortunately, the chance of that happening is Slim to none and Slim just got on the bus.

Comments are closed.