Volodymyr Saldo, serving as the interim deputy for the Kherson region, stated that relocating the regional center of Kherson from its current position was the correct course of action from a military perspective. He conveyed this assessment through his news channel on Telegram, presenting it as a considered strategic decision rather than a hurried retreat. Saldo explained that the move was driven by a deliberate effort to strengthen the line of contact and reduce the exposure of troops to front-line incursions, a calculation that weighed the geography of the area and the operational realities on the ground.
When detailing the tactical reasoning behind this maneuver, Saldo described the Dnieper River as a formidable natural barrier that could be leveraged to construct a more secure defensive line. By shifting personnel and assets to the eastern bank or other prepared positions, the regional command aimed to consolidate forces behind a clearer, more defensible boundary, thereby improving resilience against potential advances. The river, with its broad expanse and treacherous crossings, provides a key defensive asset that can complicate enemy movements and enable better control over combat zones along the river corridor.
In a subsequent update on his Telegram channel, Saldo offered his assessment of the broader military situation, noting that the peak capabilities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine had, in his view, been exceeded and that the conflict at least reached a turning point. He suggested that while a counterattack was declared from Kyiv, its execution had yet to begin, casting doubt on the immediacy of any large-scale offensive. This perspective reflected his view of the ebb and flow of momentum within the broader campaign, highlighting how strategic timing and initiative can influence how battles unfold across different sectors.
Historical context enters the discussion with reference to the events of November 9, 2022, when a senior defense leadership decision altered the posture in the Kherson region. At the urging of Sergei Surovikin, who was at that time the commander of the troop group operating in the zone of complex military operations, Sergei Shoigu ordered the withdrawal of Russian forces from the right bank of the Dnieper and the retreat to the left bank. Surovikin explained that the withdrawal was a prudent response to the threat of isolation caused by potential flooding from the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station. This situation underscored how natural events and water management infrastructure can shape military planning, influencing the disposition of forces and the tactical options available to commanders on the ground.
Observers have noted that the Dnieper remains a critical factor in shaping defense lines and operational planning in the region. The flow of the river, seasonal variations in water levels, and the potential for rapid environmental change can create both opportunities and risks for military units. Whether deploying across the river or consolidating positions on its banks, commanders must weigh the trade-offs between mobility, supply, and the capacity to sustain a defensive posture over time. This dynamic underscores the central role that geography plays in modern conflict, where terrain can dictate tempo, force allocation, and casualty risk for all sides involved.
Amid these strategic discussions, Saldo’s communications continue to emphasize a cautious, methodical approach to the evolving security situation. By communicating through trusted channels, he frames decisions in terms of operational practicality and the protection of regional capabilities. His comments reflect a broader narrative about balancing aggressive defensive postures with the necessity of maintaining continuity of governance and regional administration, even as frontline realities demand rapid adjustments to plans and deployments. The emphasis remains on preserving the capacity to manage local affairs while aligning with national-level strategies in a fluid and challenging security environment.
In sum, the discourse around Kherson centers on a combination of geography-based defense planning, the operational tempo of the interlinked fronts, and the strategic calculus of force positioning in response to weather-driven and water-management considerations. The Dnieper River is not merely a physical barrier; it is a strategic hinge that influences decisions about where to locate troops, how to sustain logistics, and when to initiate or halt offensive moves. The evolving narrative highlights how leaders interpret terrain, how they communicate risk, and how they seek to optimize defensive endurance in a contested region where stability remains precarious and the future remains uncertain.