That's pretty incoherent. Russia evacuated the city, and letting Ukraine take it the same way they let Ukraine take other territory earlier. This is not a victory where Ukraine actually defeated Russian army. While that's happening, Russia is moving in additional 300k troops and destroying Ukrainian power grid as we speak.

There’s a pretty stark difference between the way Russia and Ukraine conduct this war. Russia always prioritizes preserving the troops and equipment while focusing on strategic gains. On the other hand, Ukraine strategy is driven largely by delivering media victories for their western sponsors.

As a result, Ukraine is suffering horrific losses of men and equipment without having the ability to replenish either effectively. Ukraine has no domestic military industrial capacity at this point, and relies solely on the dwindling supplies from the west. Meanwhile, much of the able bodied population has already been either drafted or fled the country by now.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

additional 300k troops

How many of those actually showed up? How many fled across the border? How many did Putin later walk back because he realized calling up 50 year olds was a bad look? And how many are so poorly equipped and/or trained that they're more trouble than they're worth?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Every report I've seen says that not only did they meet the quota, they also got around 70k volunteers. Russia has over a 100 million people, it's absurd that anybody would think they couldn't scrape 300k troops.

Also, Russian mobilization cut off was at the age 45, while Ukraine just announced a mobilization of anybody under 60. That does give a hint regarding who's hurting more for troops.

Meanwhile, literally millions of people have fled Ukraine already, and you seriously think Ukrainian troops are better equipped with their hodge podge of donated weapons from NATO inventories?

[–] graphito@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

yeeees-yes-yes, beautiful! Yeah, let me see

retaliation is a strategic gain | check!
driving away the enemy without a fight is both suffering horrific losses and also ~~doesn't count~~ not a real victory | check-check!
dooming the poorest of civilians to frost death without electricity while not affecting the situation on the battlefield is a real victory (oof, I thought you're communist!) | CHECK
EU will freeze 😞 | Not check! | did you forget to practice your lines? I thought we've already gone through this all several times!

Also-also, can you name a situation where you would (hypothetically of course!) acknowledge ukrainian gains? I really would like to have it on the record to show it to you later

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

Wake me up when Ukraine actually manages to defeat Russia in combat little buddy.

[–] uthredii 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They have decided not to contest' this territory, it's very simple 😂

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It did seem unlikely given that Russia now considers Kherson city to be Russian territory. Please do explain what this changes militarily if Ukraine controls Kherson city.

[–] basiliscos@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Please do explain what this changes militarily if Ukraine controls Kherson city.

Russia will have to recapture Kherson, as it is part of Russia (since Sept. 2022).

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Now that they ran the referendum, they don't really have a choice in the matter according to their constitution. However, they can do this on their own time. There is no pressing need for Russia to do that right now. But this does tie up Ukrainian troops in order to hold it.

Russia's ultimate goal is a military victory and destruction of the Ukrainian army. If they achieve that goal then they will capture a lot more than just Kherson city.