Is this map accurate? How did Russia lose so much territorial gains so fast?

It was known long before Putin decided invading was a great idea. People acting surprised NATO funded Ukraine when they flat out said they would do just that, are the dumbest of the dumb.

>Seems like a pointless victory.
It is. The Russians can just keep destroying Ukraine. Ukraine can't win this unharmed. Ukraine is deep in shit.

it's not pointless at all, they took an important logistical hub in Kupiansk and that'll further erode already struggling Russian supply

Izium was not useless fields it was a transport hub for the entire right wing of the russian forces pushing against Dontesk, it was the first thing they went for when they pivoted from Kiev. Not only that, it was full of repair stations and supply dumps.

It was also the first large scale operation done by Ukraine and shows they can use mechanized forces at a divisional scale. That shows that the aid was worth it and is being put to good use. A couple more offensives like this would destroy the russian ability to fight in ukraine. It is a huge deal.

>That shows that the aid was worth it and is being put to good use.

That's also very important, now they'll get even more equipment

Because no body ever hears of NATO or any other type of historic military alliance ever before this suddenly happened one day for no reason at all.

Their military wasn't as good as we thought it was. They already have their land bridge to Crimea though. It will be interesting to see the fate of the Donbass, specifically Donetsk Oblast as they have been losing ground there recently.
Cope. Russia lost thousands of troops in those "feints".

Because the red areas doesn't mean that entire area is covered in Ruskies. If they control certain strategic points like roads, railways and villages, they essentially control an entire region. So while these maps show entire areas covered in a color, it's only just small areas that truly have any troops in them.

This fact was very obvious in the war against ISIS, as although the maps often showed entire areas of Syria being under control(upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Syrian_Civil_War_map.svg/400px-Syrian_Civil_War_map.svg.png), if you looked at where ISIS actually had their troops, you'd see it was just a few roads and cities surrounded by endless desert and mountains where no one actually stayed (2.bp.blogspot.com/-n6zwFaP4Cws/Vh3m3KSJfbI/AAAAAAAApfo/3ayRRAizU7g/s1600/Syrian_War.jpg).

So although the map showed the Ruskies controlling huge areas, what is required to take all that area is a lot less than what it looks like. Take over certain strongholds, and you own the region.

>So although the map showed the Ruskies controlling huge areas, what is required to take all that area is a lot less than what it looks like. Take over certain strongholds, and you own the region.
So? You think you can just sneak in, wave a blue-yellow flag, dance in a wheat field and yell Slava Ukraini?

That land bridge is very vulnerable to the same sort of offensive done in Kharkiv, a couple battle groups running to Melitopol with territorials to hold the flanks, that would cut Kherson and Crimea from the land, then all that is left is the Kerch bridge to supply 30k troops

> How did Russia lose so much territorial gains so fast?
They're Russians.

That's probably the most retarded and triggered take on my comment you could possibly have.

Actually it's huge cause Ukraine can liberate Bilgorod now and advance further in Moscow direction without any resistance if they deside to.

literally how is that possible?

retard

It will be hard to advance into Donetsk cause the line was heavily fortified for the 8 years there. It is better idea to advance into Bilhorod.

Ukraine will just shell bilorod to neutralize the arty hitting kharkiv, they dont want shitty russian land they want their shitty ukraine land. they will turn the flank of dontesk and cut it off from russian rather than directly attack the frontlines.