>>52042
I have heard that but I don't know that I believe it. I think the most likely explanation was simply that both sides knew that a fight over Kherson would be bloody and miserable for them both.
The Russians were not going to lose their army but fighting in such conditions would have meant their army would be poorly supplied and that many Russian assets such as aviation and helicopters would have to be redirected to resupply the Russians over the river and also to provide air support for them. It could have ended in a situation where the Russian army was stuck in Kherson city, terribly supplied but on the other side the Ukrainians would have to fight in bloody urban combat against an enemy with their backs to the wall, all the while being hammered by Russian airpower and from Russian artillery on the other side of the river. It would be bad for both of them, and also bad for the city itself and the people living there. Most likely it would have ended with a permanent but poorly supplied Russian bridgehead located in Kherson city and then a permanent force of Ukrainians stationed around the city to keep them in check.