And majority of the Russian army is in Kherson with their back towards a river with no bridges. Supplies are limited and they are unable to move a meaningful amount of vehicles in or out of Kherson. This is completely unsustainable in the long term.

Weird that Ukraine isn't making gains there if Russians are in such a dire position isn't it.

It sure is expensive. But Kherson has tied so many russian resources that Ukraine now managed to steamroll through Kharkiv.

Yes, Ukraine managed to steamroll uncontested territory. Quite the tour de force there just like the first Kharkov offensive.

HIMARS is the reason Russian logistics are completely fucked in Kherson. It’s also the reason for the rise in “smoking accidents” in ammo dumps on Russian occupied territory.

Except that there is zero indication that HIMARS played any role in Kherson or that Russian logistics are having any problems there. Meanwhile, attacks in Crimea were carried out by drones. Ukraine doesn't even have HIMARS missiles with the range to hit Crimea.

So in Russias hands they do have strategic impact?

What I actually said was that If HIMARS type systems make a strategic impact then Russia has an advantage in this area by virtue of having an order of magnitude more MLRS systems.

I’m done with this thread, we both know this discussion won’t reach a conclusion. I’m interested to see where our points will stand in another 6 months

Good, let's see what actually happens since it's pretty clear we're not going to convince each other of anything here.