One sided commentary about how the war is going? What kind of fantasy world do you live in where reality and unreality have equal journalistic weight.
I could send you ten different accounts of Russian soldiers going through their own version of the hell this guy was going through. If I did that, would you say they should have equal "journalistic weight" as this guy's (assumedly very real) suffering?
Edit: I ask this because your separation of what information into "reality" and "unreality" is a very, very effective propaganda technique when those terms are given a certain type of definition. My suspicious is that accounts of suffering Russian soldiers or Russian losses, no matter how well-documented, would be classed as "unreality" or rejected for some other reason. My way of looking at the world is that as long as it's pretty well-documented, either "side" of information can be accepted. A propagandistic view of the world is that only one "side" can be accepted, and the other side is "unreality" or has some similar reason for being dismissed. For that reason it's a pretty important question.
You clear far ahead of what's defensible, set up your defenses, and hold.
The west side of the Dnieper river is "cleared" by Russian forces, is it? Is that what you're saying?
Edit: Actually, let me ask it differently. So your assertion is that "winning" a war looks like pushing your forces over a river, advancing a few tens of km, then engaging in fighting and pulling back to the far side of the river, then having your enemy's troops cross the river and entering into a protracted monthslong stalemate on your own side of the river. That's the intended goal of the operation ("how war works") when you're winning; is that your assertion?