Krinki always comes up in all videos of youtubers all the time.
I assume for the AFU it serves as a threat that they'll cross the Dniepr, engaging and tying down some amount of Russian forces directly, and some reserves behind, which cannot be moved elsewhere just incase.
I don't see it's better than that.
But what does it cost them?
Because for the Russians it's an opportunity to kill Ukrainian marines, and with allowing them a foothold they are baiting them to move more troops there. And if those troops are dying they don't do other operations elsewhere.
I don't think it costs much for the Russians in life to keep Ukrainans in bay.
And now giving up Krinki would look bad for the AFU. So they stuck with it. Especially now that the question of the €50 billion is on the table.

Now that I mention that.
Orbán said no for the 50 bil in December, and was told there will be another round in February.
Ofc, Orbán will veto that one.
So again it was pulled out from the drawer that Hungary is actually very bad, corruption, and minorities, no democracy. Because taking measures against a member country can only be done on the basis that they are violating fundamental EU values. They can't take away the veto because a country does not vote on something.
But taking away the veto need unanimous vote, and for now it seems Slovakia will veto that. At least from what Fico says.
It was raised that unanimous decisions should be abolished entirely, and just go with majority, simple or 2/3 in more serious cases. But if we look at the EU, it is a supra-national (economic) organization with sovereign states as members, who all give up parts of their sovereignty to make this organization work. Voting by majority would mean that the majority can violate the sovereignty of the rest of the states, and force them to things they don't want to agree on. Unanimity keeps equality.