If true then I have one question: Why after a month have the Russians not taken Kyiv? There is much uncertainties and propaganda on all sides but an undisputed fact is that Kyiv was a major objective and that the Russians have not taken it.
I don’t think territory and/or cities are a the main Russian target.
Putin is taking down the Deep State in Ukraine - this includes biolabs, chernobyl, and pockets of DS troops (Azov).
If true then I have one question: Why after a month have the Russians not taken Kyiv? There is much uncertainties and propaganda on all sides but an undisputed fact is that Kyiv was a major objective and that the Russians have not taken it.
__________________________________________________
I’m certainly no military expert, but why try to forcefully capture every neighborhood street by street and house by house when you can just cut off food, water, gas, medical supplies, and everything else that 21st century people need? It seems to me that there are two main phases where your army could take significant casualties: 1) in the contested phase where your military must defeat the opposing military to effectively gain supremacy of the skies and territory around major pop-centers, and then 2) actually trying to forcefully capture each city block-by-block. Number 1 is unavoidable, but number 2 is much more avoidable if time is on your side and you are patient.
It seems like Putin is trying to force Zelensky to voluntarily surrender which would give Russia some sort of moral victory.
I was particularly amused by the attempt to analogise this two the Iraq war, saying the U.S. should be "scared" by that comparison. Iraq was more than 6000 miles away from the U.S., separated by an entire ocean. And we took Baghdad in 3 weeks.
Russia is invading its next door neighbor, and they still haven't taken any of the largest cities. And the claim that "they don't really want to" is belief by their (rejected) demand for the surrender of Mariupol.