Pre-War Political and Economic Environment of Kherson
Before the war, Kherson was a regional economic hub with a population of approximately 280,000 residents. The city functioned as an important port on the Dnipro River and played a critical role in Ukraine’s agricultural and maritime industries. Politically, Kherson was historically aligned with Ukraine but had a segment of its population with pro-Russian sympathies, particularly following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. However, the broader sentiment in the city was overwhelmingly in favour of Ukrainian sovereignty, as evidenced by the resistance movements during the Russian occupation.
Population Decline and Factors Contributing to It
The population of Kherson has significantly declined since the war began. The Russian occupation of the city, which lasted from March to November 2022, saw widespread human rights abuses, including enforced disappearances, torture, and suppression of pro-Ukrainian sentiment. The city was recaptured by Ukrainian forces in November 2022, but since then, it has suffered relentless artillery and drone attacks from Russian forces positioned on the south bank of the Dnipro River.
Additionally, Russian destruction of civilian infrastructure, combined with the psychological toll of persistent bombardment, has forced tens of thousands of residents to flee. Current estimates suggest that fewer than 100,000 people remain in Kherson, with the rest either internally displaced within Ukraine or seeking refuge in neighboring European countries.
The Russian Military’s Attempts to Re-Cross the Dnipro River
Russia has made repeated attempts to re-cross the Dnipro River in the Kherson region, despite these missions appearing to be suicide operations for the soldiers involved. Ukrainian forces have consistently repelled these attacks, and numerous reports indicate that Russian commanders show little regard for the lives of their troops, sending them into situations where they face almost certain death or capture. This demonstrates Russia’s ongoing strategic interest in Kherson and underscores the continued threat to the city’s security, even in a post-armistice environment.
Destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam and Its Consequences
On 6 June 2023, Russian forces deliberately destroyed the Nova Kakhovka dam, causing catastrophic flooding across vast areas of Kherson region, particularly on the north bank of the Dnipro River. This act was widely interpreted as an effort to prevent Ukrainian forces from crossing into Russian-occupied territory on the south bank. Beyond its military implications, the dam’s destruction devastated agriculture, displaced thousands of residents, and caused long-term ecological damage. The consequences of this destruction further necessitate a structured and internationally supervised reconstruction effort.
The Proximity of Russian Forces and the Need for a Strong Peacekeeping Presence
Russian artillery remains within striking range of Kherson, enabling continued bombardment. Even with a ceasefire, Russia’s historical pattern of violating agreements suggests that military deterrence will be necessary. A robust international peacekeeping force, ideally composed of NATO and other allied nations, is essential to prevent renewed aggression. This force would not only protect the city from military threats but also ensure safe conditions for civilians returning to their homes.
Damage to Civilian Infrastructure and the Psychological Impact on Residents
Russian attacks have disproportionately targeted buildings associated with the Ukrainian administration, leaving others intact, particularly those perceived to house Russian sympathisers. This has fostered an environment of paranoia and suspicion among remaining residents. If left unaddressed, these divisions may escalate into civil unrest, further complicating post-war rebuilding efforts.
The Role of a Temporary International Civilian Presence
A temporary international civilian presence, led by European authorities with backing from Western military forces, could help stabilize Kherson post-armistice. Such a mission would:
Oversee the reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure, including housing, schools, and hospitals.
Facilitate the return of displaced persons by ensuring security and addressing grievances.
Implement governance reforms to rebuild trust in local institutions and reduce corruption.
Mediate disputes between different factions within the community to prevent localized violence.
Work with international organisations to ensure fair distribution of humanitarian aid.
Historical Precedents for Internationalised Territories
There are several historical precedents for temporary international administration of post-conflict zones. Examples include the United Nations administration of Kosovo (UNMIK), the international supervision of East Timor following Indonesian withdrawal, and post-war reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. While these models had mixed success, they demonstrate the potential for an international civilian mission to provide much-needed stability in Kherson.
Arguments for and Against an International Civilian Presence
Arguments For:
Provides neutral oversight, reducing the risk of corruption and political retribution.
Facilitates safe return of civilians and rebuilding efforts.
Enhances credibility of the armistice agreement by ensuring that international actors hold both sides accountable.
Deters further Russian aggression in Kherson through a visible and credible international presence.
Arguments Against:
Risk of international mission overstaying and becoming a long-term occupation.
Potential resistance from Ukrainian nationalists who see it as an infringement on sovereignty.
Logistical difficulties in coordinating between different international stakeholders.
Towards a safe and secure reconstruction of Kherson
Given Kherson’s strategic importance and the destruction it has suffered, an international civilian presence is crucial for post-war stabilisation. The combination of targeted destruction, population displacement, and ongoing Russian military threats creates an unstable environment that will not self-correct without external assistance.
A structured international mission, led by European actors with Western military backing, could help restore normalcy, encourage displaced persons to return, and lay the foundation for long-term governance reforms. Such a mission would not only facilitate reconstruction but also serve as a deterrent against renewed hostilities, ensuring that Kherson does not remain a flashpoint for future conflict.