You've probably heard that Russia is withdrawing from Kherson—the city of Kherson, that is, not the entire oblast. Here's how the New York Times showed it on a map:
Is this a big area or a small one? Where is it, really? The tiny little detail map in the bottom right kinda sorta tells you, but not really. Unless you're a Ukraine junkie who's been following the war obsessively, this map doesn't really tell you much. Here's a different approach from the Institute for the Study of War:
This shows the entire area of eastern Ukraine and outlines the area Russia is abandoning in red. I've redrawn it in green to make it even more readable. As it turns out, it's a middling-smallish area north of the Dnipro river. The entire area south of the river is Russia's land route to Crimea, and their retreat makes it obvious that this is really their key concern. The ISW map would be even better if it were expanded to show Crimea to the south.
My point here is this: maps are good. I love maps. But why does the Times waste our time with a map that zooms in so much that it doesn't really tell us what's going on? If you're going to publish maps—and you should!—why not publish good ones?
It will be a major win once it is secured, and that includes securing the dam on the Dnipro river--something not highlighted on either map. Of course the Russians could decide to go all scorched earth and shell Kherson (the city) into a pile of rubble.
Puts the HIMARS closer to the Crimean Bridge, and helps control supply routes.
It doesn't put HIMARS anywhere near the Kerch Strait bridge. It's 418 km from Kherson to Kerch, which is the western end of the bridge. Even if we give Ukraine ATAMCS, it's out of range. Ukraine already has places in Zaporizhzhia oblast that are closer, but still out of range.
It does get Ukraine closer to the neck of the Crimean Peninsula, but to properly interdict a railway, you really need to be within howitzer range, which taking Kherson wouldn't achieve, either.
I’d also like to see a map that shows the furthest Russian penetration into Ukrainian territory and how much the Ukrainian army has regained.
General Milley recently said Russian casualties are well over 100 thousand with Ukraine suffering about the same but with 40 thousand civilians killed. Ukraine claims 300 thousand Russian casualties with over 75 thousand killed. It seems to me that the problem for Ukraine is that they are fighting a war in which the enemy can kill its civilians and destroy infrastructure with impunity. Ukraine can’t retaliate and hit Russian infrastructure and civilians without facing nuclear retaliation.
Dumb take. Ukraine has done multiple attacks both inside the annexed regions and inside Greater Eastern Ukraine (Belgorod).
Had the US given them ATACMS, sourced Gripens, and Patriot batteries Ukraine would be doing much better on that front.
Annexed areas and “Russia” are different in my opinion. YMMV.
Let me know when Ukraine sends drones to knock out power around the Kremlin.
The restraint you note is what exactly makes the support of and inclusion of Ukraine into NATO the right idea. Would we have ever let supply lines alone outside of borders...oh wait.
A follow-on book to "How to Lie with Statistics" and "How to Lie with Charts" was "How to Lie with Maps." Everybody should have copies of all three in their libraries, or at least have read them and understand how data presentation works.
Great work, as usual, Kevin. I name you The Clarifier!
Whenever the mainstream media makes things impenetrable and just relies on citing a bunch of quotes, we can depend on KD to make sense of it.
Both the Times and the ISW maps are good. Not useless. The Times map shows me where Kherson is in Ukraine, and I do recognize the shape of Crimea, because I've seen plenty of maps before. The detail area is where things are changing, which is what I want to see.
Yes it's a large chunk of Ukraine over the Dnipro.
The other point missed is whether or not the UA decides to make this a rout: do they allow the orderly withdrawal or do they press, cause panic, capture, annihilate large numbers of blocking forces?
Elsewhere significant numbers of Russian men and equipment are destroyed daily in combat. There are now reports that the Pentagon estimates a combined total of 100,000 combatant casualties in this war - to be sure civilians are probably worse off.
I wish you amend here s bit: the 100,000 casualty estimation is for Russian combatants only.
The Ukrainians appear to have chosen the "Let's kill as many Russians trying to get on boats as possible" option.
Agree this is a much better map. What puzzles me a bit is the amount of Russian held territory ( not including the separatist areas) that still exists in the face of the progress the UA has made. Like a previous poster noted, it would be interesting to see a map showing how far the Russians had penetrated at the height of their invasion.
With the exception of the elimination of the Kharkiv sector sliced off during the push for Izyum and the north south line from Kremina to Svatove and the pair of salients from the north towards Kyiv, the front has remained fairly stable in the middle of the country.
But don't let that fool you. The reckless disregard for their men since the beginning of this war and the continued almost nonsensical attacks into areas well prepared for defense has reduced Russian units to such staggeringly small numbers, the 300,000 call up was necessary to even maintain security.
This is the map I use to keep up to date with it: https://liveuamap.com/
The blue-shaded areas is territory once held by Russia that has been retaken by Ukraine.
It also allows you to click the date in the top-left corner to view the map at any date since the invasion started.
Wow! That map is very interesting.
“…why does the Times waste our time with a map that zooms in so much that it doesn't really tell us what's going on?”…
If it’s consistent with the manipulative NYT usual MO, the simplest answer is:
1) Zooming in allows you to make it seem more sensational - bigger, more dramatic things are happening. They are in the business of selling hype.
2) For complicated reasons, they are pro-war. All wars, but especially ones their target demos have an interest in. Never seen a war against Arabs they disagree with, for instance. Same as all major US media.
So basically they're just pulling back across the river to get a more defensible position?
Yup. However, the fact that they think they need a more defensible position speaks volumes. That's the action of a general who recognizes that the enemy is stronger.