It Is Not About the Acquisition of Territory

The war is won not by the party that gains territory but by the party that destroys the armed forces of the adversary

Jun 16, 2024

Languages: UA | RU || BG | CS | DE | EL | ES | FR | HR | HU | IT | PL | RM | TR |

Reading time: 49 minutes (54 minutes with footnotes)

Welcome to the peace initiative for Ukraine in which you can contibute by raising your awareness as well as your consciousness^[+] and spirit to the modes^[+] of neutrality^[*^], decency, respectfulness, wisdom^[*^], objectivity, mastery of the intellect, surrender (ego and mind to God’s will), and finally peace (inner then outer). To properly grasp everything, we recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative in the order that we^[*^] designed it, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we urge you to do it, please. Did you read the this “Reality Checks” segment from the beginning? Please, do so for a better grasp of the topic of this article: The Real Beginning of the War in Ukraine.

This article is a sequel to the article “Russia Is NOT Losing” of the “Reality Check” segment of this wisdom-driven peace initiative to end the war in Ukraine, so make sure to read it to understand the context and raise your awareness about it all.

Ukraine is all about retaking territories and media victories; Russia is not. So, to judge Russian military capabilities based on Ukrainian and NATO criteria would be stupid.

Russians don’t conduct the war in terms of square kilometers (focus on how much land they occupy) or on some schedule but they are very rational and use military logic in terms of looking at what resources they control and what foundation they have for a further fight. Unlike the Ukrainian President and commanders who are using their troops as cannon fodder (e.g., Artyomovsk – a.k.a. Bakhmut), Russians are not willing to foolishly sacrifice their troops as they are driven more by military logic than by greed for territories or the political desire to avoid a defeat. Russia plays the Big Game and Putin^[+] is a far-sighted, history-loving leader who has never lost a war.

That said, every army has good and bad commanders and Russian army is no exception. There was one infamous Russian army commander (of the 20th CAA), Lieutenant General Sukhrab Akhmedov, who is not a Russian but Chechen, who was dismissed^[+] in May 2024 because it was uncovered that he has been involved in multiple battlefield setbacks whereby he was responsible for recklessly losing soldiers. He and his brother-in-law General Muradov were commanders of the notorious Vuhledar debacle^[+]^[+] in February 2023, for which only Muradov was held accountable^[+] and removed at the time. He was blamed^[+] for a costly HIMARS strike on troops in city of Kreminna, Luhansk, in June 2023, that killed and wounded 200 Russian soldiers, who had been assembled and waiting for him to deliver a motivational speech for two hours crowded in one place, which is a no-go in a war zone. He is also blamed^[+] for unjustified huge Russian losses in battles of his units near the settlement of Terny in the Limansky direction.

As you may know, in the WWII, the Soviet Union defeated Germany by seizing only a small part of its territories by forcing the Nazi government to capitulate. Just like with Germany, Russian approach is the same with Ukraine – they did not attack to conquer the land but to denazify and demilitarize it.

If there is still anyone out there who believes the Russian army is weak because they make no significant progress in terms of territorial gains and because it takes them many months to seize some small Ukrainian towns, then allow us to shed some light on the Russian Military Doctrine^[+]. We will dive into the part of it called Maskirovka^[+] in a separate article on Military Strategy^[*^], so make sure not to miss it as it reveals how Russians totally fooled the NATO smarty-pants and so managed to win this NATO proxy war^[*^]^[+] against Russia in Ukraine despite being massively outnumbered^[+] and sanctioned. In this context, we want to pinpoint another aspect of Russian Military Doctrine that is tied to their primary objectives1. The Military Doctrine of Russia centers on the protection of Russia, not the expansion of Russia.

Their mission is demilitarizing and denazifying rather than occupying Ukraine. Their strategy is not to seize towns but to semi-encircle them to use them as traps to grind down or demilitarize the Ukrainian armed forces, which they do superbly. So, all those who are ridiculing Russia for not being strong and competent enough as evidenced by slow territorial progress, should des-disinform themselves and look at the factual results of all those missions in which AFU2 had been eliminated. Russia is winning this war not by gaining territory but by destroying the armed forces of its adversaries to secure and protect its folk.

The constant Ukrainian complaints about the shortage^[+]^[+] of all sorts of military equipment attest to Russia's success in demilitarizing it. Ukraine lacks ammunition^[+]^[+], artillery shells^[+]^[+]^[+], air defense^[+]^[+], fighter jets^[+]^[+], long range missiles^[+], etc. but most importantly, it lacks manpower^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+] as Russia obviously neutralized most of it. Russia has managed not just to demilitarize Ukraine but also NATO as it depleted its stockpiles^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]
As of 16 June 2024^[+], Russia demilitarized Ukraine in total, 613 airplanes and 276 helicopters, 25.845 drones, 529 air defence missile systems, 16.340 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1.341 combat vehicles, 10.491 field artillery cannons and mortars, as well as 22.567 units of special military equipment have been destroyed during the special military operation.

Below is video proof^[»]^[»]^[+] that since September 2022, Russians had no intention to advance or go on an offensive to occupy more territories. As that Western video and many articles show, Russians had been building multi-layered defensive fortifications (with deep trenches, pillboxes, rows of concrete pyramids known as dragon’s teeth, and deep ditches called tank traps) across the frontlines (a.k.a. Surovikin Defensive Line^[+]) as part of their defense strategy. There would be no point in investing so much effort in constructing such robust, defensible positions if they planned to go on seizing Ukrainian territories further on.

Russians certainly do not need more land or ruined towns as they have more than enough. Russia is the largest country in the world. They have so much land that they are even giving it away at no cost even to foreigners in their own country – by Federal Law No. 119 FL^[+]^[+], enacted by generous Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2016, anyone, including foreign nationals, may get one hectare (2.5 acres) of land free of charge in certain huge thriving areas where they can build their homes and grow food for themselves. That is a fact. Furthermore, Russia has one of the world's lowest population density per km² – 8 persons per m²^[+], which means it surely doesn't need more land for its population. Why would they be so desperate to go into a war for something they don't need? Think about it. Also, the birth rate is decreasing and is in minus (same fertility rate as in Germany^[+], natality is lower than mortality)^[+], which means that they need less rather than more land.

Some may argue that occupying Ukrainian land is about controlling the natural resources of the land and trade routes but if those were so valuable to die for it, why was Ukraine the poorest land in Europe when it had it all? So, no, Ukraine has no natural resources worthy of dying for it, at least not from the Russian perspective, as Russia is overly rich in natural resources. When it comes to the acquisition of natural resources, they are more invested in acquiring it from their rich Arctic region (beside Siberia) than poor Ukraine. Also, if they were so keen on foreign natural resources, there were surely other countries with more resources than Ukraine to invade. Furthermore, before the whole conflict with Ukraine started in 2014, Russia had a thriving economy^[ꚛ] (even now, it's one of the best in the world^[+]^[ꚛ]^[+] when it comes to trade balance, GDP PPP3^[+]^[+]^[ꚛ]^[ꚛ]^[+], and no debt^[+]), so surely, they didn't need a war or a conquest for economic reasons.

Therefore, as Russia is the biggest country in the world and the richest in natural resources, they do not lack either land or resources, which is why Russians definitely don't need more land and natural resources; certainly, they do not need to steal it from others, especially not at the cost of countless lives, billions of euros, and international condemnation.

American Senator Tommy Tuberville^[»]: “Putin does not need Ukraine. He doesn't need Europe. Damn it, he already has enough land of his own. He just wants to make sure that there are no US weapons in Ukraine aimed at Moscow.”

In other words, the fact that Russians are not conquering new territories as their haters and Russophobes expect them to do and at the expected speed, only proves they are genuine with their objectives that never included territorial conquest. They annexed only the regions where locals wanted to join Russia and get protection from Ukrainian Russophobes and their vicious neo-Nazi brigades.

As any military commander knows, the war is won not by the party that gains territory but by the party that destroys the armed forces of the adversary. Ukrainians are deceiving themselves and the world by interpreting the push-and-pull military strategy and voluntary withdrawal of the Russian army from some areas as their battle victories. As Col. MacGregor (retired US Army colonel and former Senior Advisor to the US Secretary of Defense) said^[+], those were not defeats but deliberate decisions by the Russians to give up ground that was of no value to them after they successfully significantly degraded and depleted the Ukrainian military. Ukrainian officers know^[+]^[+]^[+] very well they haven't defeated and can’t defeat the Russian army in any major battle (not counting retaking a handful of small, totally ruined villages at a horrific rate of human and equipment loss in the summer 2023 counteroffensive), have had no battlefield successes, and are far from destroying the Russian army.

Ukrainians did seize some territories throughout the war but not because they won some battles but because Russians followed directives to retreat. Russian military policy is to avoid close combat because they are not willing to sacrifice their men when there is enough artillery power to process Ukrainian troops from a distance. Therefore, whenever Ukrainians come too close, Russian military policy is to retreat to a more defendable position and fire at the adversary. Gerasimov's4 military directive is “when you see the enemy, retreat because we have enough artillery bombs, rockets, and missiles to get them from a better-defendable position”.

*Valery Gerasimov*, the Commander of the Joint Group of Forces in the Special Military Operation zone since January 2023

Ukrainians make territorial advances but they are not that significant because what is more important to Russians than a territory is maximizing Ukrainian losses and minimizing their own. Ukrainians may propagate overtaking some villages as their victories but what they omit to disclose is at what cost?

For instance, to partially^[+]^[+]recapture an insignificant, small (3 km² or 1.2 sq mi^[+]), abandoned, and fully destroyed village Robotyne with a population of 480^[+] (before the war; before recapture, it was 0), Ukrainians paid for it with more than 20.000 lives over several months of fighting with 12+ brigades^[+], not to mention the loss of all the NATO-supplied expensive equipment worth hundreds of millions of euros (Leopard 2 tanks, Bradleys, Strykers^[ꚛ]…). And what was the gain or ROI? Zero. And that's being nice. The actual gains are below zero, as they only had massive losses and Russia kept pummeling them in that trap until it retook it some months later^[+]. Extrapolating from these numbers, Ukraine would need at least 600 million troops to retake all of Donbas.

The military goal of Russia is to force an unsustainable casualty rate, destroying Ukrainian manpower and equipment, while preserving Russia’s own forces – maximizing adversary losses while minimizing its own. While focusing on demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine, territorial gains are not important. The loss of territories is acceptable to preserve combat power for further demilitarization and denazification efforts.

Russian military has a holistic approach to warfare, which involves the integration of a large number of factors in the development of a strategy and is materialized by the concept of "correlation of forces" that is part of situation assessment. At the operational level, they compare the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the forces and resources of their troops (forces) and those of the enemy. It is calculated on an operational and tactical scale throughout the area of operations, in all directions, in order to determine the degree of objective superiority of either them or the adversary.

Force correlation assessment is used to make an informed decision about an operation (battle), and to establish and maintain the necessary superiority over the enemy for as long as possible, when decisions are redefined (modified) during military (combat) operations. This is the reason why the Russians withdrew from Kyiv, Kharkov and Kherson in March, September and October 2022.

Although they withdrew from Kyiv during March peace negotiations as a goodwill gesture, their withdrawal was already conceived way ahead, evident by the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the forces and resources – a small number of committed troops there and inadequate logistics.

Kyiv Retreat

March 2022

When it comes to Russian retreats in Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson territories in March, September, and November 2022, which are constantly used among NATO officials and Western media to prove that Russia was or is losing, we will now present all the evidence to the contrary. Russians did not withdraw troops because they lost any battles but because they changed strategy upon peace negotiations outcomes. While usually a retreat may be interpreted as a defeat, it doesn't apply to the cases of Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson because Russians retreated without any or significant casualties, without losing any battle.

As opposed to Ukrainian military retreats or withdrawals, which happened due to Ukrainian army being defeated in battles as well as due to degradation in their combat capabilities, effectiveness, and their ability to hold the lines, Russian retreats, on the other hand, never happened for any such reasons. Russians retreated from Kyiv region because this was asked from them during peace negotiations as a gesture of goodwill, and in Kharkiv and Kherson, they retreated as a tactical withdrawal necessitated because Russians were short of troops and spread too thin on several fronts but more importantly because Russia changed strategy and military command.

Initial strategy, which did not even require having a Commander of the Joint Group of Forces (in Ukraine it is called Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and was held by general Zaluzhny then, now general Syrsky), thus Russia had no one, was most likely similar to their military operation in Georgia^[+]^[+] (8–16 August 2008), after republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia proclaimed independence from Georgia and Russia backed them because Georgia applied to join NATO the previous month, which ended in just 8 days (or just 4 days of fighting between Russia and Georgia, or 16 days altogether fighting between Georgia and Georgian separatists) – a mere show of force to force the government to engage in peace negotiations and assure neutrality status.

Both countries, Ukraine and Georgia, underwent a US-backed and funded regime change in 2003 (Rose Revolution^[+] in Georgia) and 2004 (Orange Revolution^[+] in Ukraine) whereby US-puppet regimes came to power that were lured to quasi-apply to join NATO in 2008, which triggered separatists in both countries as they, very much like the public at large, did not want to be part of NATO. Unlike Kyiv regime5, Tbilisi government under Mikheil Saakashvili negotiated a peace deal with separatists and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Russia did not annex any Georgian's territories and would not have annex any Ukraine's territories if Zelensky hadn't backed off from the Istanbul peace deal in early April 2022.

After Georgia was given a promise to join NATO in July 2008, President Saakashvili got emboldened^[»] to invade two rogue provinces in Georgia despite knowing that Russia would come to their rescue, so Saakashvili de facto started^[ꚛ] a war with Russia, but he naively counted on NATO help, which did not happen and so Georgia lost these two Russia-backed provinces. Here is a great explanation^[»] by an international relations analyst from Georgia (living in the US). South Ossetian separatists confronted Georgian police on 1 August 2008, which ended with four South Ossetians getting killed and seven wounded. Armed hostilities ensued and Russia had the ceasefire observer status and when ceasefire was broken, it was mandated to conduct peacekeeping operations, but the Russian military took it upon themselves to protect the South Ossetians as they resented Georgia for wanting to join NATO. The Russian army and air force began raiding targets inside South Ossetia and Georgia on 8 August. Russia was defending both peacekeepers and South Ossetian civilians who were Russian citizens. On 10 August, fighting commenced also on the Abkhaz front. On 12 August, Russian President Medvedev announced the cessation of the "peace enforcement" operation in Georgia and on 16 August, he signed the agreement. On 25 August 2008, the Russian parliament passed a motion for the diplomatic recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia republics. On 26 August, Medvedev issued orders recognizing the independence of the two states.

Russia sent troops to north (incl. Kyiv region) for two main reasons: to intimidate Kyiv to force it to negotiation table and to force a bulk of Ukrainian military to stay north to defend Kyiv, as well as create a Crimean land bridge with access to water and electricity, which made it easier for Russian army to liberate Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, which was the main objective of Russian SMO6.

In other words, Russians fooled both Ukraine and NATO who foolishly taught Russia's main objective was to take Kyiv as they did not understand Russia and its objectives and military doctrine that includes deception maneuvers and bluffing. Sending troops to north around Kyiv was a bluff and an example of operational rather than just mere tactical undertaking – this was a special military operation, a master chess move! This is operational art of Russian military, like an art of playing chess, while NATO and Kyiv only think on tactical level, which is only about moving troops around and destroying things. Since Russia did not do what NATO and Kyiv expected them to do, in their narrow-minded view and from mere tactical perspective, they declared that Russia failed in Kyiv region, which is moronic.

Head of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Colonel General Sergei Rudskoy explained^[+] on 25 March 2022 exactly the point of this operation in the north. But arrogant Westerners never pay attention to anything Russian generals say or dismiss everything as “Russian propaganda”, which is why Russians can easily outsmart them.

If Ukrainian armed forces have allegedly won some fictious Kyiv battle, where is evidence? Where are the footages of Ukrainians defeating the Russians in that battle? There is only evidence that Ukrainians lied. We are going to provide the evidence for the fact that Russians withdrew as a goodwill gesture during peace negotiations but here is evidence again that Ukrainians lied about destroying Russian Airborne Forces in Antonov airport north of Kyiv:

Zelensky lied^[+]^[+] that "a Russian airborne force in Hostomel airport outside Kyiv, which has a big runway, has been stopped and is being destroyed… many Russian warplanes and armored vehicles were destroyed…" This was debunked^[»] by a CNN reporter who drove out to take a look and report on that Ukrainian triumph but found the Russian Airborne Forces (VDV) just chilling on the perimeter of Antonov airport in Hostomel and he saw no destroyed Russian warplanes and armored vehicles.

When it comes to withdrawal from Kyiv region, the fact that they surrounded the multimillion-populated capital with just a tiny contingent of troops is the evidence that they never planned to seize Kyiv in the first place but were there only to force Kyiv authorities to engage in peace negotiations over the 8-year long Donbas war^[+]^[+] during which Ukrainians have killed almost 14.000^[+] ethnic Russians and terrorized, tyrannized, and forced to flee millions more.

For comparison, it took a whole 9 months for the US and all its allies with around 110.000 troops against just around 10.000 IS militants to take the Iraqi city of Mosul (180 km² or 70 sq mi; 1,5 million population at that time) in the 2017 battle^[+]. But they expect us to believe that a lone Russia with less than 30.000^[+] troops planned to take almost five times larger than Mosul city of Kyiv (839 km² 324 sq mi; 3 million population) in just 3 days! And then they declared Russians as losers for not achieving it. Ba-dum-tss, badum tish!

Since the peace negotiations were going well, as a show of goodwill, Russians retreated from the whole of northern areas, including Kyiv outskirts to show they meant what they said about withdrawing troops.

When it comes to alleged battle, what kind of a battle is it in which no tanks were involved and only 3^[+] strikes occurred with just 9^[+] killed throughout the whole time Russia approached the city??? One has to be retarded or a liar to call that a battle.

If Russians had the intention to seize the heavily fortified US-controlled Kyiv^[+] with three million residents^[+], logically, they would certainly not attack it with only less than 30.000^[+] troops and only for 40 days (if Russians fought for Mariupol7, Bakhmut8 and other towns for many months, why would they fight for Kyiv only 40 days?! Also, it took 9 months for the US and all its allies with around 110.000 troops against just around 10.000 IS militants to take the Iraqi city of Mosul in 2017^[+]) without any logistics and a real battle (no direct combat; in the first week, they shelled the city for just 30 minutes^[+] and sent saboteurs rather than troops, with only three missiles being fired), nor would they kill only 162 Ukrainian soldiers (Russian Ministry of Defence issued an evacuation notice to local civilians; altogether 89 civilians who didn't want to evacuate or go to shelter died in the course of 40 days due to airstrikes and when a Ukrainian fighter aircraft was shot down over the city, crashing into an apartment building and when a Russian missile struck the Kyiv TV Tower, or due to debris from shot down Russian rockets targeting non-residential areas, or in areas used by Ukrainian forces to store munitions and MLRS; also, tens of thousands of civilians had been given assault rifles and training, so they were part of the military) but anyone is allowed to interpret it to their coping needs and wishful thinking.

The fact that the Russian Kyiv convoy of Russian military vehicles stretching some 64 kilometers near Kyiv never engaged in any battles, proves that it was there just to threaten the Kyiv regime during the negotiation period rather than attack (ridiculously, the UK and Ukrainians interpreted^[+] it as malfunction speculating that they didn't attack because of fuel and food shortages or mud, despite the road being asphalted).
Russian convoy on the way to Kyiv freely advancing without being attacked

From the Russian perspective, the show of force in Kyiv succeeded in that (apart from destroying the largest oil terminal in the country) it forced President Zelensky to a negotiation table in March and April 2022. As promised on 29 March^[»], to increase trust in peace talks aimed at ending fighting, the Russians withdrew on 2 April. Russia withdrew soldiers from the areas outside the Ukrainian capital in what the Kremlin described^[+]^[+]^[+] at the time as “a goodwill gesture” and commitment to peace. This is an undeniable fact, nonetheless, Kyiv claims they won a “Kyiv battle”^[+] that never took place. Putin reiterated it many times such as in an February 2024 interview^[+»][ with Tucker Carlson and in June 2024^[+»]. To Carlson he said that Macron and Scholz asked Russia to withdraw troops from Kyiv so as to negotiate peace in good faith, which means they know very well about it not being some Ukrainian victory but Russian courtesy.

If anyone wants to believe Ukrainian and NATO propaganda, it is their right but if we dare to face the reality, it would tell us that Russians retreated as part of the peace talks gesture and because they never intended to take Kyiv anyway with such a small military allotment there. Immediately after the Russians pulled their troops away from the Kyiv Region, as they had promised to do in Istanbul, the Kyiv authorities broke off the preliminary deal with their signed commitments^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+] and shamelessly claimed victory. They claimed^[+] to have launched a counteroffensive on 22 March and they want us to believe that in 10 days they defeated the Russian army.

Just like Wikipedia states^[+], MSM reported^[+], and Reuters broadcasted^[»] during peace talks in Istanbul on 29 March, the Russian delegation declared^[+] they would drastically scale down military activity in Kyiv and Chernihiv regions to create the conditions for dialogue.

Russians kept their word and retreated from Kyiv city and all of Northern Ukraine. So, Russians withdrew not because they lost some battle but because this was a goodwill gesture during peace talks^[+]. As reported^[+], Ukrainians didn't trust the Russian pullback pledge but Russians did as promised.

However, their goodwill gesture and standing by their word was not appreciated nor respected by Kyiv and their allies, as Ukrainian nationalists (allegedly orchestrated by SBU9, and the British MI6^[»]) immediately staged a massacre in Bucha in a bid to slander Russia^[+] and so aggravate Zelensky to back off from the peace deal as they wanted to fight Russia over Crimea and underestimated Russian military strength.

Kyiv dishonored Russia's goodwill withdrawal by claiming victory in an alleged “Kyiv battle”^[+] that never occurred (there is no evidence or footage of any battle in Kyiv just some Russian airstrikes and minor clashes as part of the strategy to force Kyiv to negotiate the end of Donbas war and neutrality status in regards to NATO; such drone and missile attacks on Kyiv have been occurring ever since but no one calls any of it “Kyiv battle”, so why call it so then when no Russian troops and tanks ever entered and fought in Kyiv?).

Rewriting history^[*^] is something the Kyiv regime is very good at – just look how now Ukrainian schoolbooks^[»]^[»]^[+]^[+]^[+] and schoolchildren^[»] glorify convicted murderer, fascist Nazi collaborator Bandera10^[+] and his Nazi OUN and UPA units (they consider them WW2 heroes, raised hundreds^[+] monuments in their honor, and survived members got veteran status^[+], despite objections from all over Europe; but then again, they are not the only ones in Europe and elsewhere who take a fancy at changing history; usually for perverse reasons).

You’d think they would have appreciated this Russian pacifistic gesture, but no – gratitude is clearly not a quality of the Kyiv regime, as NATO allies may attest (looking a gift horse in the mouth, constant moaning about not getting enough aid from NATO). Beggars^[»] can't be choosers or peace negotiators.

At that time, Russian Deputy Defence Minister Fomin^[+] said the move was meant “to increase trust” in talks aimed at ending fighting, as negotiators met face to face after several rounds of failed negotiations. Ukraine and its NATO allies falsely deemed taking Kyiv as a Russian key objective and failure to take it was viewed as a Ukrainian victory despite no combat or battle victory. Ukrainians, as they are, prefer to declare Russian deliberate retreats as their crowd-pleasing victory and boast about it to the whole world. Whatever.

Russia has made some other strategic conquests and then deliberate withdrawals from areas of no special interest to it, which should not be misinterpreted as their defeat because they haven't lost any territories in battle and key regions of Donbas11. Russia didn't start the military operation to seize the whole of Ukraine but only the Donbas region^[+] with Russian ethnic groups living there – Luhansk and Donetsk republics, where the locals already declared independence and requested Russians to protect them. As Putin made it clear on numerous occasions^[+], attacking other regions was to denazify and demilitarize the adversary so that Ukraine never poses a threat to the security of Russia, and a first attempt to denazify the Kyiv regime in the capital, which was meant to make a threat rather than occupy it during the peace negotiations period.

Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Sumy regions, Zmiinyi (Snake) Island, Kharkiv region, and Kherson city with part of Kherson region are all territories that Russia seized and then withdrew from; they are all territories outside of Donbas and therefore were not Russia’s key targets, so they deliberately retreated after they wrecked them and accomplished what they wanted (demilitarized and denazified them to a great extent), as they had no real strategic value for Russians and were not worth to lose any more men over it during the initial period when Russian forces were overstretched and had no built fortifications and enough manpower to defend their newly conquered positions. Pushing and pulling is something that naturally happens in a war, thus strategic withdrawals should not be misinterpreted as defeats.

Kharkiv Retreat

September 2022

If you are to believe Kyiv propaganda (adopted by NATO countries without a question and without any Western field reporters12 fact-checking the official narrative), Ukrainians conducted a successful Kharkiv counteroffensive and in a matter of just 8 days 6-13 September 2022, they managed to defeat the Russians, force them to retreat from Kharkiv region, and capture 400^[+] towns and villages with approximately 8.000^[+]^[»] square kilometers (over 3.000 sq mi). But where is evidence of actual combat fighting??? Usually, there is much evidence in way of bodycam and drone footage of showing clashes but Ukrainians provided none whatsoever^[»] – how come? Because there is none as there was no battle in which Ukrainian military defeated the Russians. As a matter of fact, there is video evidence^[»] that Ukrainians were defeated during their counteroffensive at that time. Why there is no similar evidence in which Ukrainians were winning?

All they had to show for is aftermath pictures of some destroyed tanks many of which have no Russian Z insignia and therefore could be Ukrainian tanks – just a few destroyed Russian tanks and many abandoned tanks fully in tact is no evidence of a battle defeat anyway but rather evidence that Russians fled or retreated in a hurry^[+].

During Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kherson that started in August, Russians sent many of their troops from Kharkiv to Kherson, which is why there was no enough troops to defend Kharkiv region, therefore when they were attacked in September, they got order to retreat^[+] and just fled and abandoned much of their equipment, hundreds of tanks and other fighting vehicles – Ukrainians did not capture them by killing or defeating Russians but because Russians simply left them as they had no enough manpower to take it all during rushed withdrawal.

Ukrainians claim they killed thousands of Russians but where is any evidence of it? They usually proudly show dead bodies elsewhere but not in Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Kherson – how come? Because they lied. All mere propaganda!

For instance, CBS News showed here^[»] captured trenches from which Russians fled but there is not a single dead, wounded, or captured Russian soldier there! Where are all these killed Russians then? All just a propaganda!
Financial Times published an article^[+] with many interactive graphics and a vivid depiction but not a single evidence of Ukrainians defeating the Russians in any battle.

No one is denying that Ukrainians did in fact shelled and shoot at some Russian positions, whereby they surely did kill and injured some or many Russians and destroyed some of their equipment but just as well did Russians shoot at Ukrainians and inflict many losses on them. But Russians did not retreat because they were defeated or shot at but because they received an order^[+] to retreat because they were hugely outnumbered in a surprise counteroffensive. There was no battle! The fact that Kharkiv was cut off power and water supplies is evidence that AFU could not even defend their main infrastructure let alone win any battle.

Truth is, Russians retreated because they were outnumbered by 8 times^[»]^[+]^[+] since they never planned to wage a war there in the first place as they overestimated Ukrainian sanity believing they would negotiate peace rather than wage a war against their fellow Slavs. Ukrainians might have killed some Russians and destroyed some Russian tanks during Russian retreat process but this doesn't mean that Russian lost a battle. There was no battle!

If the fact that there is no any evidence of any battles in Kharkiv counteroffensive and the fact that Ukrainians “captured” 400 towns and villages in a matter of a week is not enough evidence that it could only happen because Russians retreated rather than because they were defeated in 400 battles, then there is more.

Perhaps the best proof that Russians could not have lost in a Kharkiv battle or that Ukrainians are uncapable of defeating Russians in any real battle is the fact that when they engaged in real battles during their 2023 counteroffensive, they were catastrophically defeated by the Russians. If they could not retake any new region like Kharkiv in 2023, when they had the reinforcement of NATO tanks and other weapons and equipment, how could have they done it in 2022?! Clearly, it was just a propaganda, concealing the fact that Russians conducted a tactical retreat because they were outnumbered and changed a strategy and command.

In July 2024, the UK’s leading defence and security think The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) issued a report^[+] with the lessons from Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive (in which 12 armored and mechanized brigades were supposed to break through a 30-km-wide area), in which they basically concluded that it failed because Russians did not flee like they falsely assumed Russians did in Kharkiv in September 2022: “Rather than using tempo and concentration to defeat six Russian regiments, it was hoped that shock action would cause Russian troops to break, as had occurred around Kharkiv in 2022.” In other words, the false assumptions regarding the Kharkiv retreat has caused Ukraine to be defeated in 2023 counteroffensive in Zaporozhzhia and South Donetsk.
It is beyond our comprehension how on Earth they expected the Russian command to be shocked as we all very well knew exactly where the direction of the main attack would be because Ukrainians kept bragging about it for many months ahead, which is why Russians had enough time to lay minefields and build defense fortifications known as “Surovikin Line”, which Ukrainians and allies were very well aware of – so no idea whom they were expecting to shock (it just proves how unintelligent they are).

Russia didn't even have a Commander of the Joint Group of Forces at that time, needed to wage a war, as they never planned to wage a war against Ukraine. In May 2022, Putin put General Gennady Zhidko in charge of Russia’s armed forces in Ukraine but released him from duty a month later (probably due to cancer as he died of it^[+] in August 2023) and replaced him with General Sergey Surovikin in October 2022, which means that in time of Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive no one was in charge.

Also, at that time, Putin was 6.000 miles away in Vladivostok attending Eastern Economic Forum 5-8 September as well as after SCO Summit (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) 15-16 September 2022, therefore he was minding other business and not at all focused on or concerned about Kharkiv counteroffensive on 6-13 September.

Also, Russians were busy organizing September annexation referendums^[+] in four oblasts of Ukraine – Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – not in Kharkiv! This also tells us that they had no intention to annex Kharkiv and therefore to defend it!

Kharkiv region is not part of the Donbas region – DPR and LPR, whose independence Russia recognized just days before launching their SMO in February 2022, and it has no majority of ethnic Russian population living there, which confirms that they had no intention to liberate anyone there as this regions was not in a war since 2014 like Donbas^[+]^[+] was and no ethnic Russians there were suffering a humanitarian crisis.

Also, local Kharkiv authorities did not request Russian protection like DPR and LPR did, which is why Russia had no intention to liberate or occupy that region and therefore it retreated when the locals showed resistance by conducting a counteroffensive. They simply retreated to DPR and LPR where they were welcomed. Russian incursion into Kharkiv region in February 2022 was only meant to be part of encirclement of Kyiv to force Kyiv regime to negotiate a peace deal but when in April the peace talks ended without a settlement, Russia was in the process of regrouping and re-strategizing, part of which was a retreat from Kharkiv where they only had a small deployment of troops and where they never built any fortified defense anyway, which proves that they never planned to defend it. By comparison, they built heavily fortified defense lines (a.k.a. Surovikin line) in many other regions where they intended to stay and defend.

As Senior Ukrainian officials admitted^[+], in Kharkiv, the Ukrainians had an advantage of taking Russians by surprise, which is to Ukrainian credit but telling just a part of the story. Still hoping to resolve the conflict with peace talks, Russian troops had lowered their defenses and hadn't even built a fortified defense line, so when they were stormed by surprise in September 2022, they simply fled without a fight, as Russian military policy is to retreat when outnumbered rather than risk precious soldiers’ lives.

As we already explained, until September 202213, Ukrainians had more than 7 times as many fighters on active duty in Ukraine – 145.00014 Russian troops were up against 1.070.00015 Ukrainian troops and millions of armed civilians^[+]^[+]^[»]^[»]^[»]^[+]^[»] (minus the casualties), and in Kharkiv region, Ukraine had 8 times^[»]^[+]^[+] more troops than Russia, which is also why they retreated from there in September, and Kherson in November 2022 as they were overstretched and hugely outnumbered, as they never planned a war.

One of the main argument for Russian withdrawal not being due to a defeat or some fictional Ukrainian victory is the fact that in Kharkiv, Russians were outnumbered by 8 times^[»]^[+]^[+] because they did not plan to occupy it at all but to force Kyiv to negotiate the end of 8-year-long Donbas war^[+]^[+] against ethnic Russians, which is evident by the tiny contingent of the Russian armed forces there – 18.000 troops in a Kharkiv region with 2,6 million people.

By comparison, to seize a small town of Avdeevka with 32.436 population (almost all of them evacuated leaving only AFU troops there), Russia used around 40.000 troops, according to Ukrainian estimates, which is a clear proof that it is absurd to claim that 18.000 Russian troops were in Kharkiv to occupy 2,6 million people and were defeated.
They were there and elsewhere only to put pressure on Kyiv to negotiate peace but when Zelensky refused to do it in April 2022, Russia changed the strategy and began pulling its troops from north-eastern Ukraine, including Kharkiv to instead defend and liberate southern regions with ethnic Russian population.
The same month, September 2022, those four regions held referendums and voted to rejoin Russia, which was a huge victory for Russia and a massive defeat for Ukraine – to undermine that humiliating defeat, Kyiv proclaimed victory in a fictional battle in Kharkiv but they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

In a matter of 8 days of so-called 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive^[+], Ukraine recovered more than 8.000 km²^[+]^[»] (over 3.000 sq mi) of land with 400^[+] towns and villages but only because Russia withdrew due to change of strategy and not due to a defeat in any battle like Ukrainians have been constantly withdrawing after losing long battles.

Some might argue that Russians wouldn't withdrew if Ukrainian counteroffensive were not successful, which could be put this way and propagandists did frame it like that. However, if that was really true, then they would be able to make further advances in the area but we all know that this is not true as ever since, Ukrainians could not push Russians back, as they could never win a single military battle against Russia. They did win some short clashes over places that were totally insignificant to Russia, not worth losing their men over it, so they retreated for the time being.

This was a tactical withdrawal necessitated because Russians were short of troops and spread too thin on several fronts but more importantly because Russia changed strategy and military command. They started their SMO^[+] in good faith believing that, when forced, Ukrainians would be smart enough to negotiate a peace deal (after Kyiv refuted diplomacy by violating the Minsk agreements) but it turned out they overestimated the astuteness of the Kyiv regime (which the Western spin doctors16 misreported as Putin's miscalculation). Russians initially overextended along the giant front and had no sufficient resources, logistics, and fortifications in place to sustain all captured territories, which is why they had to temporarily withdraw from territories on both ends of the battlefront – Kharkiv and Kherson. So, the Ukrainians didn't defeat the Russians there as there was no real counteroffensive and no real battle for Kharkiv region, just some minor clashes.

Also, at that time September – October 2022, Russia had no Commander of the Joint Group of Forces (in Ukraine it is called Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and was held by general Zaluzhny then, now general Syrsky), needed to wage a war, as Russians never planned to wage a war against Ukraine. In May 2022, Putin appointed General Gennady Zhidko but he was released from duty a month later (probably due to cancer as he died of it^[+] in August 2023) and officially replaced in October 2022 by General Sergey Surovikin. As explained earlier, by sending troops into Ukraine in February 2022, Putin and Kremlin never intended to wage a war but a special military operation to enforce peace talks to end a 8-year-long Donbas war, which is why until April, he didn't even appoint a Commander-in-chief and it took him a year to find a suitable general for the job – on 11 January 2023, Valery Gerasimov, became the Commander of the Joint Group of Forces in the Special Military Operation zone and is holding that position very successfully ever since.

Final proof that Ukraine is incapable of defeating the Russian army was the Ukrainian failed 2023 counteroffensive during which the Ukrainian army has not managed to make any significant progress, let alone retake a whole region the size of Kharkiv or push Russians further from Kharkiv region. Russia clearly crashed their 2023 counteroffensive, which was a colossal defeat for Ukraine!

Notice how part of Kherson area is designated as “reclaimed by Ukraine” not retaken, or seized or liberated because they recalimed only because Russia withdrew from there and announced further withdrawal (and kept its word).

Kherson Retreat

November 2022

And in Kherson, it was the same case of a tactical withdrawal in November 2022; no defeat in any battle as there was no battle for Kherson; just some minor clashes in which Russia inflicted five times more casualties on Ukraine, as Ukrainian soldiersreported^[+], which means Russia defeated Ukraine there, and not vice versa, even though Russians were generally outnumbered at that time.

By the time Russia retreated from Kherson city and the western bank of Dnieper river in mid-November 2022, Russia sent to Ukraine around 232.000^[+] troops (minus the casualties) while Ukraine mobilized by then more than 1,1 million^[+] troops (minus the casualties) – so, until November 2022, Ukraine mobilized almost five times17 as many fighters as Russia, yet they haven't managed to defeat the Russians in any real battle!

When it comes to territorial aspect, Ukraine had a major geographic edge, with Russia struggling to supply troops west (or left) of the Dnieper River as Ukrainian forces were hammering the bridges over the river to hurt Russians' ability to resupply and making threats^[+] to blow up the Kakhovka dam. Expecting a Ukrainian counteroffensive there, Russians had a legitimate concern that Ukrainians may indeed be crazy enough to blow up the nearby Dnieper River dam (Kakhovka dam that was in Russian hands; Ukrainians threatened to do it and did some damage to it by striking it with HIMARS at that time, and, as crazy as it is, Ukrainians did actually destroy it in June 2023 during another counteroffensive) to flood the area and so leave them stranded or isolated on the western bank without supplies, reinforcement, and rotation possibilities hence making them vulnerable and an easy target in a highly exposed position.

Therefore, to keep their soldiers safe, prudent new18 Russian Commander of the Joint Group of Forces General Sergey Surovikin and the Chief of the General Staff of the RAF19 General Valery Gerasimov wisely ordered their army to retreat to the eastern (or right) bank of the Dnieper River. As a result, all soldiers (approximately 30.000) and all military equipment were successfully moved across the river and saved. Ukrainians did not manage to either kill or capture any Russian soldiers during evacuation. By comparison, whenever Ukrainians had to withdrew, they always lost a huge amount of troops in the process. For instance, in just last 24 hours, some 1.500^[+] (out of estimated 8.000) Ukrainian troops were killed as they retreated^[+]^[»] from Avdeevka on 17 Feb. 2024, leaving their weapons and equipment behind^[»]^[»]^[+»], as well as many wounded soldiers^[+]. Also, 850-1.000^[+] troops were taken prisoners.

Just the fact that in the first Battle of Kherson^[+] in February 2022, it took Russians only 6 days to capture Kherson city with population of 279.131, it should be enough of a clue for those who use their brain-cells that there was hardly any resistance at all, suggesting that more people there are pro-Russian than pro-Kyiv, which was also corroborated by the September 2022 referendum^[+]. Therefore, there was no serious threat for Russians there. They withdrew for a reason, and that reason was surely not a defeat in some alleged battle or counteroffensive but a tactical withdrawal that had to do with geographic issue and Ukrainian threats to blow up the Kakhovka dam, which would leave them stranded and without access to supplies. By withdrawing, they chose^[+] to save the lives of their soldiers and fighting capacity of their units.

Just days before the so-called Kherson counteroffensive^[+] British media reported^[+] that a Ukrainian presidential adviser and Ukrainian chief propagandist Mykhailo Podolyak admitted in private that “we do not have enough capacity to push them back”. Therefore, since they self-admittedly could not defeat Russia militarily, Kyiv has shifted its strategy to “creating chaos within the Russian forces” by making threats to blow up the dam and so leave the huge number of Russian forces stranded on one side of the river bank. The threat worked as Russians voluntarily conceded that part of Kherson. However, there was no Ukrainian military victory to speak of there.

There was no actual counteroffensive in Kherson but Ukrainians called it so just to claim PR victory, glorify themselves, and give justification for asking the West more money. There's no battle footage as it is common for other battles. On the other hand, there's plenty of footage of Russians withdrawing calmly and in an organized way. Not a single piece of Russian military equipment and weapons was left on the right [western] bank; there was nothing for Ukrainians to show off as being captured.

So, the Russians didn't withdraw because Ukrainians defeated them but because they were in a disadvantageous geographical position at the time. Highly intelligent and sensible move. Kudos to Generals Surovikin and Gerasimov! Ego-driven, irresponsible, or reckless commanders would do otherwise, as unfortunately, we saw many of those on the Ukrainian side, who are willing to sacrifice countless lives for just a few square kilometers of land and a score on Twitter.

By the way, here are several pieces of evidence that General Surovikin is highly competent and as such could not lose a battle if there was one:
General Surovikin, a.k.a. General Armageddon, was also a mastermind behind the genius “Bakhmut Meat-Grinder” operation, which was executed by Prigozhin and his Wagner unit. It was genius not just because it was successful but for four other reasons: it was used to 1) lure around 100.000 Ukrainian neo-Nazi and elite troops and foreign mercenaries into a deadly trap (therefore they posed no threat to ordinary Russian troops elsewhere); 2) inflict much more losses on the Ukrainian defensive army (normally, those on the offensive have double or triple more losses but Russians ingeniously reversed it here), and 3) to buy Russia time to build up its army – get the newly mobilized troops trained and ramp up production of their modern weapon system (they were not ready for a war when they launched SMO). And 4) they did all that by sacrificing mostly their criminals (Prigozhin recruited convicts) rather than regular soldiers, so they also unburdened their prisons! This deceptive operation was aligned with the Russian Military Doctrine called Maskirovka^[+], featuring a complexity of combat measures directed to mislead the enemy regarding the presence and disposition of forces.
General Surovikin was also a mastermind behind the tactic of attacking energy facilities. It is better or more humane to try to freeze people into submission than to kill them because they at least stay alive. It didn't work because the winter was mild and because most Ukrainians are Slavs (the rest identify themselves rather with Anglo-Saxons20 and Vikings). Such strategy would not work for Russians and any other folk that has Slavic blood and identity because Slavs would prefer to suffer than to capitulate to foreign pressure. Slavs have a higher pain threshold than Americans, for instance, but Ukraine is so Americanized that it was valid to try that tactic. Attacking energy facilities had an additional objective – to deplete air defense systems because such facilities are best guarded by AD, which makes them the best target for demilitarization objective.
General Surovikin was also a mastermind behind the famous Surovikin Defensive Line^[+] – a defense strategy of multi-layered defensive fortifications across the selected frontlines (with deep trenches, pillboxes, rows of concrete pyramids known as dragon’s teeth, and deep ditches called tank traps), which proved to be well-thought-out (in right locations and impenetrable) and very valuable during Ukrainian summer 2023 counteroffensive.
As opposed to the then-Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhny^[+](far-right^[+]^[+]^[+], neo-Nazi Bandera follower^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[ꚛ], accused^[+]^[+] by the US of blowing up the German-Russian Nord Stream gas pipelines), his counterpart on the Russian side since January 2023 – the Commander of the Joint Group of Forces and Chief of the General Staff of the RAF Valery Gerasimov is highly professional and never begs anyone for weapons and support, never blames anyone, never complains, and never seeks media attention by giving his opinions (he gives occasional honest reports to the media, such as about the military circumstances and modernizations efforts on the fly^[+]).
Although Prigozhin notoriously blamed Gerasimov (and Defense Minister Shoigu) for not supplying him with enough ammunition, Ukrainian General Zaluzhny got more blame^[»] from his soldiers and even the President Zelensky^[+]^[+], which tells more about those who play the blame-game than about the generals.

"Tactical Retreat" to more defendable and favorable positions is a preemptive military measure and not a result. Russians didn't want to keep their troops in undefendable wide muddy fields, so they withdrew to more favorable positions and built fortifications. Troop preservation is way more important on the battlefield than territory. History has shown plenty of examples where territory gains at the expense of too many lives ended up in defeat. Russian tactical retreats do not mean that Russia is weak but adaptable to the nature of modern warfare.

Before they retreated from a patch of territory in Kherson, Russians made sure to accomplish their main objective to demilitarize, that is, inflict enormous losses on the Ukrainian Armed Forces there – Ukraine lost some 10.000^[+]^[+]^[+] soldiers and much of its equipment and incapacitated many more in just over a month of fighting over a 20-kilometer strip of Kherson territory^[ꚛ] before the Russian Armed Forces withdrew from the whole of the 40-kilometer strip, as reported by the mayor of the liberated Kherson city of Snigirevka, Yuri Barbashov^[+], Wikipedia^[+], the Russian Commander of the Joint Group of Forces, Sergey Surovikin^[+]as well as wounded Ukrainian soldiers^[+] (who said they suffered five times more losses than Russians; per Ukraine^[+], they killed 2.500 Russians, which would then mean that approximately 12.500 Ukrainians were killed).

Considering Ukrainian catastrophic losses, this was clearly a Pyrrhic victory21 but the Ukrainian and Western media never reported on it and instead spun the story to their advantage by shouting from the rooftops about humiliating Putin so as to boost national morale and demonstrate to Western governments that their billions of dollars in economic and military aid were paying off. Masses of casualties and not much to show for it. Whether the counteroffensive for a 20-kilometer strip was worth the toll it has taken, the answer by the mothers, fathers, and siblings of the victims is surely different from that of the penpushers in Kyiv.

Just to give you an idea of how little the Kyiv regime values the lives of their soldiers, here is an estimate of the ratio of gains and losses during the Kherson counteroffensive. Ukraine claimed^[+][+] it had recaptured over 1.170 square kilometers (450 square miles) of land^[+] (an average price of $1.420 per hectare^[+]^[+]^[+], which makes that area worth around $166 million) for which it sacrificed over 10.000 lives^[+]^[+]^[+] plus billions of dollars’ worth of destroyed equipment, buildings, and other assets. When we calculate the gains against the losses, this tells us that by making all these human sacrifices, the Kyiv regime valued their people (not even counting those other assets they lost) at less than $16.600 each (willing to lose 10.000 lives to gain $166 million worth of land) and if we add billions of losses in assets too, then it comes down to a huge minus value (even if we would inflate the value of land and properties). In other words, any way you slice it, the gain is much, much less than the loss and the value of Ukrainian soldiers was reduced by their government to the value of cannon fodder, sadly.

But the Kyiv regime gained a PR victory, which seemed more important of a gain to them than all the losses. This is what you get when your head of state comes from show business. Zelensky is all about the show. He has no education or experience in making decisions based on military rationality, as well as no clear conscience to make decisions based on morals.

That alleged victory has inflamed the clueless anti-Russian Western public and captured the imagination of the possibility of an even larger overall victory over Russians with its sensational narratives in the mass media that seemed purpose-made for the ensuing Netflix blockbuster that’s sure to follow.

By contrast, the Russian military doctrine is the opposite, so they do not fight battles till the last Russian. While Ukraine places more value on territorial gains than on human lives, Russia is the opposite placing more value on human lives than territorial gains, which is why they rather retreat from territories than sacrifice excess lives. When they were outnumbered22, they rather pulled out their troops than foolishly risk their lives. Russians are focusing on achieving military goals through military logic. They often readily retreat to more defendable positions, like hills, from which they are in a position to destroy AFU as demilitarization (rather than territorial gains) is their main objective. Being deceived and ignorant of this military strategy, Ukrainians and their NATO allies interpret those withdrawals as their victories disregarding their catastrophic losses.

The facts that Kherson city’s population shrunk six-fold from 300.000 (during the Russian “occupation”) to 50.000 residents^[+]^[+] six months later and that the mass of those who remained in the city obtained Russian passports are telling how welcome the Ukrainian “liberation”^[+] was – btw, the liberation celebration on 11 November 2022 was attended by only a couple hundred of people^[»] and Zelensky's arrival there on 14 November 2022 was scarcely attended^[+»]^[+]^[»] (out of 300.000 residents just a couple of hundred came, mostly just soldiers). 250.000 people stayed during the Russian “occupation” but left/evacuated^[+] just before and after Ukrainian “liberation”.

As one of the countless video testimonials of Kherson people, here below^[»]^[»] is an old sincere Ukrainian man from the Kherson area who was interviewed in June 2023 by a Ukrainian blogger asking about how was it during the Russian occupation and he said that it was all good and that Russians helped with money and food. When asked about what he thought about Russia attacking Ukraine, he was very resolute in saying “They did not attack! They helped people.” And when he was asked if he agreed that Russia was a terrorist country, he decisively said “no” explaining that “it happens that Ukraine shells and blames all on Russia.”
Two Ukrainian women from Kherson who were under the “Russian occupation” told^[»] the truth about how friendly and protective Russians were to them, saying “We just wanted to hug them because we felt protected” from Ukrainian HIMARS missiles, told how they helped people, gave humanitarian aid, helped people evacuate also with dogs, and took care of quite decent monetary compensation and housing certificates.
Another Ukrainian woman who was under the “Russian occupation” told^[»] the truth about how polite and nice Russians were to them, better than the cruel Ukrainian military, how they helped old people, gave food, fixed their problems like with electricity, and committed absolutely no atrocities as Kyiv regime tries to pin such crimes on them.
The evidence that the majority of Kherson residents are pro-Russian rather than pro-Kyiv is in fact that they voted to rejoin Russia in the September 2022 referendum^[+] – 87.05% (497.051) supported the annexation to the Russian Federation, with 12.05% (68.832) against and 0.9% of ballots invalid, on a turnout of 76.86% (571.001 voters took part).

From a PR standpoint, Ukraine got its propaganda victory there and in Kharkiv and Kyiv but from a military standpoint, they achieved nothing as they didn't destroy any Russian garrisons while they lost much of its military and inherited problematic territories (with energy and food shortages with huge investment needs).

As Ukrainian Maj. Gen. Andriy Kovalchuk, who was tasked with leading the Kherson counteroffensive said^[+]: “My task was not only to liberate the territory. My task from the start was to occlude23 and destroy the force. That is, to not let them leave or exist.” As it turned out, he and his forces failed at that, as they could not prevent the Russian force from leaving and existing, nor did they run down or destroy it. Mission unaccomplished. Evidence that the Kherson counteroffensive didn't go well is the fact that in the midst of it, Maj. Gen. Kovalchuk was replaced by Brig. Gen. Tarnavsky.

As reported^[+], the Ukrainians were supposed to bisect the Russian-occupied area west of the Dnieper River and trap the Kremlin forces there, which they failed to accomplish, and were also considering a far broader counteroffensive across the entire southern front, including cutting the “land bridge” connecting the mainland Russia with Crimea – that mission was also unaccomplished!

And like in the case of Kharkiv, perhaps the best proof that Ukraine has not defeated Russia in the counteroffensive in Kherson in November 2022 is the fact that they could not retake any ground at all in Kherson during the summer 2023 counteroffensive despite having much more military aid and time to prepare for it.

It must be highlighted that neither Kharkiv nor Kherson 2022 counteroffensives by the Ukrainian military have achieved any key strategic objectives, such as reaching the sea, cutting off the Russian land bridge to Crimea, destroying the Russian force, causing the Russian military to collapse or panic, nor precipitating a political crisis in Moscow, instead Ukrainians suffered exceptionally heavy military losses, which was much more important to Russians than capturing any territory, thus as far as Russians are concerned, their objectives were achieved.

Also, Russians managed^[+] to capture the remains of 18th-century Russian Prince Grigory Potemkin (from his tomb in the Kherson Cathedral), who annexed Crimea for the Russian Empire in 1783, before Kyiv regime desecrate it like they’ve done with all other Russian historical memorials.

The famous "Potemkin village"^[+] phrase stems from the myth that Grigory Potemkin, a field marshal and former lover of Empress Catherine II, constructed fake villages solely to impress the Empress during her journey to Crimea in 1787. The term comes from stories by a former Saxon diplomat in Petersburg, Georg Adolf von Gelbig, one of the main ill-wishers of Catherine II and Potemkin, where all the activities of the prince were depicted exclusively from the negative side. This phrase is nowadays widely used in politics and economics for a construction (literal or figurative) whose purpose is to provide an external façade to a situation, to make people believe that the situation is better than it is.
Catherine II and Potemkin

Another major win for Russians from retreating to more defendable positions was that they could inflict much more military losses on the Ukrainian military and stop Ukrainian counteroffensive. Ukrainian failures to achieve their key strategic objectives and humongous losses of both manpower and equipment including ammunition during the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives have disabled Ukrainians from launching any other offensives for a long time (until June 2023), which allowed Russia to win time to regroup, reinforce, fortify the occupied territories, and upgrade their arsenal.

Another great gain from those withdrawals for Russians was that Ukraine and NATO were thereby deceived into believing that the Russian military was very weak, which led them to totally miscalculate their summer 2023 counteroffensive that therefore horrifically failed. Due to false conclusions made as a result of the counteroffensives in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions in the summer-fall of 2022, Western politicians and military leaders (such as NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Christopher Cavoli, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin) believed that their calculated military aid to Ukraine would suffice to meet the goals of 2023 but they turned out to be dead wrong. As the AFU was not equipped enough, Russians had no problems defending their positions and inflicting enormous military losses on the adversary better than planned (they didn't even need to use their main fortified defenses as the AFU could not even breach the mobile defenses).

Long-anticipated, much-hyped counteroffensive^[+] had been announced ever since October 2022 but kept being postponed endlessly despite all the big talk about Russians being defeated, weak, and demoralized. If that was indeed the case, it would have been natural to go on, go ahead, use the momentum, and push Russians more and more back but this was clearly not the case because it was all a big lie, as many independent Western military analysts pointed out. The reality is, Russians demilitarized them (destroyed their army) to such an extent that they could simply not go on a major counteroffensive until June 2023 when the real show of strength between the two cleared all that nonsense.

The point is, Ukraine has been unable to achieve anything on the battlefield (or on Russian soil with its terrorist attacks) that is of any strategic substance. But Ukrainians are not ones to fold, even when they are holding a weak hand. They’d much rather try to bluff their way to victory (or postpone the defeat). This is okay in card games but not when people are dying and suffering and towns are getting annihilated. We’d prefer to praise it but we must be candid about the Ukrainian government, which is sadly lying horrifically to their people about the situation on the battlefields, especially about the losses.

Understandably, they treat their casualties as a state secret so as not to demoralize their soldiers, and inflate the number of Russian losses to keep up or boost the morale of their forces. However, to inflate the numbers to such an extent and then bloodthirstily brag about the exaggerated total numbers of Russians they killed, knowing it is a lie, is not only deceitful but inhumane. Decent human beings should never lose sight of the human tragedy behind these numbers. To civilized people, there is nothing to brag about people dying, even if they are considered enemies.

Thank you for reading this article and participating in this peace initiative by raising your awareness and, hopefully, your consciousness and spirit. To properly grasp everything, we^[*^]recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative for Ukraine in the proper order, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we recommend that you do. This article is part of the “Reality Checks” segment warning about propaganda. When you are ready, please proceed to the next article in this series: Casualties

Ukraine Peace Initiative Substack

Discussion about this post