Oh, I see, you're talking about literally ever single place that Russia walked through at some point in the last 9 years and calling all of that not only "occupied" but also "successfully regained through counteroffensive". A truly expansive definition.

The rest of the world is instead looking at this through the lens of realism. Through this lens, territory is constantly in a state of flux and much territory cannot actually be held successfully. Russia has expressed its intent quite clearly and it is not the total annexation of Ukraine, so assuming the goal of each deployment is annexation leads to terribly faulty analysis. Instead, we look at how the movement of troops through areas that are not holdable are nevertheless strategically valuable in establishing the perimeter that is holdable. This is where the much vaunted "spring/summer counter-offensive" enters the calculation.

Prior to this counter-offensive, Ukraine was deemed to have lost it's 2nd full army and was requesting a replenishment from the West in order to keep fighting. This is when all the Western liberals turned into tankies and kept crowing about the awesome tanks that were being sent to Ukraine for the counter-offensive. Since the launch of the counter-offensive, Ukraine has recovered about 10mi, a tiny tiny fraction of the territory. Worse, they have lost a massive portion of their now 3rd army built on these shipments from the West.

You don't have to believe the BBC, but it certainly runs entirely counter to whatever propagandist BS that wikipedia article reads as.