It always has been & always will be an abominable tactic to sacrifice others for one's own ideology !

"What exactly did they succeed in, heavy losses - for no territory taken?
The morgues in Odessa were overflowing apparently."

I'll have a go AC. Yes, Ukrainians took losses against very well equipped Russian forces in Kherson, but they achieved two advantages. Russia moved men and equipment, resulting in the loss of most of Kharkiv, and those men and their equipment are now stuck in Kherson, unable to be mobilised along a long front line. I am sure that Russia has other concentrations of modern equipment capable of holding off the Ukrainians, but I suspect that they might have the same problem as the Phorcides and are similarly vulnerable.

AC asked "What exactly did they succeed in, heavy losses - for no territory taken? The morgues in Odessa were overflowing apparently."

Surely you understand it by now. The Ukrainians spent a month or more talking up their assault on the southern front, reinforced by attacks on Crimea facilities. They advertised their intention to relieve Kherson and open a path to Crimea. It was all very up-front and convincing.

And, like you, the Russians fell for it hook, line and sinker. They pulled forces out of the Karkiv region to reinforce the forces where the Ukrainian attack was supposedly to come. Once the Ukrainians were convinced enough troops had been moved, they sprung their trap and attacked on the eastern front. It has been wildly successful with even Lyman about to fall. Yes, they achieved local superiority in numbers but only because the Russians, like you, took the bait.

They have made minimal ground around Kherson because that isn't their current aim. They continue to pressure Kherson so that the Russians can't relocate troops from there to the Donbass.

Which, of course, is why Putin is trying to find an extra coupla hundred thousand pieces of cannon fodder.

Claiming as you continue to do, that the Kherson offensive was a failure utterly misunderstands the strategic situation.

mhaze

There was indeed a promise that NATO would not move eastward. It wasn’t formalised in a treaty, but it was stated in 1990 meetings between Russia, the US and West European nations. There’s an archived collection in Washington of thirty crucial documents which prove beyond doubt that the promises were made by multiple western leaders to Gorbachev as the USSR was being dismantled. The west has already broken the promise four or five times and, if Zelensky gets his way and Ukraine joins NATO, is about to break it again. They will no doubt break it another time when, as is their clear intention, they bring Georgia into NATO.

The fighting in the Donbas was indeed the fault of the Ukrainian government. The 2010 democratically-elected Yanukovych government had tried to balance the expansion of ties with the EU and the maintenance of historical business relationships with Russia. In 2013 Yanukovych backed away from signing an EU association agreement and asked for more time when advised the agreement would blow a $160 billion hole in Ukraine’s economy. The US instigated a coup which saw Yanukovych driven from the country and the US-puppet Poroshenko installed as leader. His first legislative act was to abolish the official recognition of the Russian language which quite rightly angered the approximately 45% of Ukrainians who were Russian speakers. As a majority Russian-speaking area, the Donbas sought autonomy from Kiev and as such was subjected to a repressive government crackdown.

Russia did not arm the Donbas rebels. According to former intelligence officer and NATO advisor monitoring the situation at the time, Jacques Baud, 'there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia’. The rebels were armed by Russian-speaking Ukrainian units who defected to the rebel side. From the time of the coup, the US was training and arming the Ukrainian military, among them far-right neo-nazi militia. Around 14 000 were killed in the Donbas in the eight years before Russia’s military intervention in February 2022. Mass graves were being uncovered and evidence of war crimes reported to Amnesty International in 2021.

Bronwyn,

The expansion of NATO was at the request of the nations bordering on Russia primarily due to Russia's aggression towards its neighbours. The ousting of Yanukovych followed his refusal to join the EU with the loss of $bns of potential trade etc. This was a popular revolt with 100 000s of protesters in the streets.

The takeover of Crimea and the occupation of the Donbas region were performed by Russian troops using Russian equipment, and unless you can show how the rebels suddenly obtained Russian tanks, artillery and anti-aircraft systems I call bollocks on it being a popular revolt.

Russia is now losing this war, and with the chaotic call-up of non-combatants Russia's economy is now in turmoil and a death spiral. And these new recruits are simply cannon fodder.

Putin is determined to take Ukraine and does not care how many Russians or civilians get killed.

Kharkiv has far less strategic value than Odessa, they will come back and take it later once reinforced from the partial mobilisation.
They tried to use it as a staging point to move south to Sloviansk and Kramatorsk but they couldn't break through Ukraines defensive lines there.
- With that in mind, troops were better off elsewhere, they gave up the territory, but it was a bit of a debacle.
- And likewise Izyum has less strategic value than Bakmut.
In Izyum, 500 men held off 6000, though I've heard they've now withdrawn.
Bakmut is the key to Donbass falling and Russian / allied forces are making progress there.

"It has been wildly successful"
Don't kid yourself, it was largely undefended.
Russians withdrew, they didn't contest it.

"They have made minimal ground around Kherson because that isn't their current aim."
- That's just what they said when the counter offensive failed.
They certainly lost a good chunk of their forces trying.

NATO - What Gorbachev Heard
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
FYI, NATO had 3 waves of expansion, look it up. "Not one inch eastward"

The Russian call up for mobilization was botched, but I heard they actually called up 1.2 million reserves, not just 300,000.

Ukraine has run out of tanks it's using 70 year old T-55s from Slovakia which are ineffective and begging Germany for Leopards and the US for M1 Abrams and outnumbered in artillery and short on ammunition and no longer have much in the way of an air force.
The West's shipments of weapons has slowed and Ukraine has lost all it's best troops.
As well as this the Ukrainian economy is looking bad.
- And Russia is going to increase boots on the ground by 4 or 5 times.
What do you think is going to happen?