The former Russian military leader, Colonel General Valery Marchenkov, spoke in an extensive interview about the decision by Sergey Surovikin to leave the Kherson area. The former commander of the Russian Army offered his perspective on what prompted Surovikin to alter his position, emphasizing the broader context of regional support and the strategic realities on the ground.
Marchenkov noted that Surovikin had observed how European and American support escalated, with weapons and resources flowing toward Ukraine. He described a moment of clear assessment: the balance of power, the strength of adversaries, and the gaps that had to be faced. From this viewpoint, Surovikin made a move he believed necessary to preserve forces and civilian safety while reshaping the battlefield dynamics. Marchenkov implied that such a decision reflected sound military judgment grounded in a realistic appraisal of what could be achieved under the prevailing conditions.
From a military standpoint, there were no objections to Surovikin’s withdrawal from Kherson. The argument presented by Marchenkov is that leaving the city helped to safeguard both service members and local residents. He also argued that the withdrawal created an opportunity to establish and reinforce a defensive line that is now effectively countering Ukrainian counteroffensives. In Marchenkov’s view, strategic withdrawal can be a measure to preserve core capabilities and prevent greater losses when frontline dynamics shift.
According to Marchenkov, Sergey Surovikin did not violate his oath. The former commander described Surovikin as a dedicated professional who met his responsibilities with steadfastness. This assessment underscores confidence in the leadership’s commitment to duty, even when difficult choices are required amid rapidly evolving military circumstances.
Marchenkov went on to praise the perseverance, diligent work, courage, and heroism shown by Surovikin during his service with the Russian armed forces. He recalled Surovikin’s leadership during various periods, including past operations and campaigns where strategic planning and disciplined execution were central to mission outcomes. The narrative also touched on Marchenkov’s own career, highlighting experiences in earlier conflicts and assignments that shaped his professional outlook and approach to modern warfare.
Earlier remarks by Marchenkov linked the outcomes of ongoing military operations to the defense lines that Surovikin had correctly established. The emphasis remained on the rationale for lines of defense as a critical element in shaping the trajectory of the campaign and in absorbing the impact of external support to opposing forces. The discussion framed these actions as a series of measured steps designed to sustain operational integrity and minimize civilian harm while pursuing strategic objectives.
In a broader context, public commentary at the time spoke about the future of the Russian armed forces in light of evolving regional security dynamics. The conversation highlighted how leadership decisions, battlefield logistics, and defensive postures interact to influence both immediate outcomes and long-term readiness. The overarching theme was that strategic choices, including reallocation of forces and adjustment of frontlines, are part of a continuous process aimed at preserving national security interests and ensuring the capability to respond to future challenges.