Here's the thing though, as I already said, do you really think Russia will stop if they get to keep any significant amount of territory?
Almost certainly not. They'll be back and ready to wipe Ukraine off the map.
I'm under no illusions that Ukraine are doing fantastically. They are vastly outnumbered and outarmed. There's simply no debate to be had there. But honestly, they have no choice but to fight to the end if they want there to be an independent Ukraine at the end of this.
My personal opinion is what I stated in my original post yesterday.
Putin will stop either - once Donbass is taken and resistance elsewhere becomes too strong for current Western Russian army to take. That's the most "win" scenario for the West that can be painted as failure for Putin. I would forget counteroffensives or even taking back Kherson - it's not happening. In fact I would consider any Russian major city gains as permanent. Maritime and air superiority virtually ensures this even if artillery gets supplied to Ukraine. Moreover any "integration" of the region with Russia means that Russia will consider it their land and will retaliate indiscriminately.
But let's be clear - while Russia is fucked either way, Ukraine even in this scenario is still thoroughly fucked even more. Major mining region is gone, last access to sea under blockade - the state will be very poor and on life support from the West. With all the money they will owe to USA and Europe - cause those aren't free weapons they are getting - we're talking of effectively a country sold out.
The next scenario which I'm inclined to think personally is what Putin ideally wants after failure of installing a friendly puppet regime - is to take South and East of Dnepr with or without Kyiv. That's very hard and may take years but not because Russia is somehow inept - it's because taking fortified major cities is very very tough (unless your goal is complete annihilation) and will take a long time. After all in Syria Aleppo stood for months and even USA couldn't take strongholds in Afghanistan easily even with surges. If there is no agreement after the current phase is over (depending on the outcome of Donbass frontline) - it will be a grinding slow chokehold on Kharkiv and Odessa, probably by Mariupol scenario with sieges and just cutting off and waiting out. I totally see how Zaporizhie announcement earlier today is heralding just that - region announced to merge with Russia, requires "liberation" because not fully under Russian control - after Donbass Russian army will shift to denazify Zaporizhie city.
Why I think that's the extent of it? Because right now it's feasible from a military standpoint still and it makes common sense from Putin's perspective. Those are territories that have most of valuable resources (mines, gas, grain), most of the Russian-speaking and - most-importantly - Russian-accepting population. They were given to Ukraine not too long ago and do not have a full-formed separate identity yet unlike the Western parts. Moreover without them, security of Moscow is not yet 100% guaranteed.
After that - there is no point in going further. Dnepr river is a good security threshold for Moscow. Anything in Western Ukraine is very anti-Russian and they were very much anti-Eastern Ukraine either. Why bother? It makes no sense to wage war there or establish any form of control. Anything properly NATO like Poland or Baltic states? Laughable, it's WW3 then and Putin is not mad.
Yes, they were ordered to stand down as part of a negotiated swap. Yes, they were low on ammo and supplies. Yes, they had a humongous amount of grievously wounded. No, they didn't just give up.
Unfortunately, trusting Russians to uphold a deal is an incredibly bad idea, as shown time and time again.
That genuinely sounds like some "Trust me brat*" Russian Telegram agitprop bullshit. Claim that the enemy intended to do some amazingly retarded idea, then say they stopped at the last minute because reason X. Easy to peddle, since you don't have to actually present evidence (it's all """second-hand rumors"""). I'd call it "snowmanning".
OBTW, avoid Telegram like the plague.
*bro
I just want to highlight that the first part of your post is same agitprop bullshit as you're accusing me of in second part.
I mean how do you know they were ordered to stand down? Did Zelinskiy say that and that is automatically true?
If you're low on ammo and have dozens of wounded - what position are you in to make any deal, reasonably?
How is it better sourced than the "Telegram agitprop" from Ukrainian-side informers at Rada? Then let's agree not post any unverified BS.