I could see a benefit to occupying a small amount of Russian territory, not a whole lot as to not risk compromising foreign support, but something, simply because the war is very unlikely to end with a total defeat of the Russian state, so a Ukrainian victory would mean Russia deciding that it was no longer worth it and leaving, or Russia getting pushed out of occupied lands and then the conflict settling into a frozen conflict. The former is probably more likely than the latter given attacking entrenched positions is difficult, so having some bargaining chip if Russia decides to end things makes it more likely that they pull out entirely rather than try to just stop with what they occupy, since freezing the borders as they are in such a case would mean giving up their own territory.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Occupation takes a lot of troops and resources, that frankly Ukraine doesn't have to spare. Spitballing here, but I would assume that an occupation force for that specific region would have to be at least 50 times the size of that raiding party.

Which is the point, because while it will take Russia a lot less troops to secure those borders, then it would take for Ukraine to occupy the territory, it's still forces one side to redirect assets that could be otherwise engaged on the actual front lines.