Russia withdraws from Kherson, shattering the narrative of Ukrainian defeat

Ukraine reclaims over 50% of occupied territory, and the narrative of defeat crumbles

Can a war be lost while regaining half the land that was taken? By the end of 2022, this question divided analyses of the conflict in Ukraine. Moscow has had to retreat from Kherson, and according to the balance of power discussed in the thread, Kyiv has recovered over 50% of the territory occupied since February 24; yet, the prevailing view that the game was lost has barely budged an inch. Its star argument was simple: the Russian army is advancing, slowly but surely.

Who has won and who has lost territory

In the first month of the war, a seemingly irrefutable calculation circulated: Russia had annexed almost the entire Ukrainian coast, the Ukrainian army had accumulated tens of thousands of casualties, and the Russian army had fewer than 4,000 fallen. With this evidence, the conclusion was self-evident. The problem is that the evidence has changed.

Nine months later, the map tells a different story. Kherson is back in Ukrainian hands, and the territorial balance has been reversed. The historical objection also does not support a triumphant narrative: against Finland, Russian forces only prevailed after hundreds of thousands of casualties and to gain a strip of tundra. If victory is measured by the number of bodies, the result does not favor Moscow.

The economic cost: more expensive gas and Russian recession

Here, the data is less debatable. According to the balance cited in the thread, Russia entered recession in the third quarter while the EU continued to grow, by 0.2%: a small amount, but growth nonetheless. Europe has a new, slightly more expensive eco-friendly gas supplier and has begun replenishing its arsenals, with plants like Santa Bárbara manufacturing tanks. Some analyses interpret this as a textbook defeat; others maintain that the outcome will be oil and gas at caviar prices, increased poverty, and an impoverished Europe paying the bills for others.

The battle for the narrative: who calls for negotiations and who loses territory

Some accuse the dominant analysis of developing Stockholm Syndrome with NATO, blaming it for pushing the conflict and for the bill Europeans are paying. The response from the other side emphasizes that the territories recently incorporated into Russia have proven not to be as untouchable as announced and that Russia has had to abandon Kherson.

The comparison with 1943 has been used in both directions: for some, Germany was still on Soviet soil and had already lost; for others, confusing advance with victory is the classic error. What is striking is that neither side disputes the figures. They dispute their meaning.

Winter remains, which, as is often repeated in the thread, will decide things. In March, a Russian victory seemed a matter of days away. Nine months later, that date has still not arrived. If that constitutes winning, it's worth checking the dictionary.