Thread by @kajleers

@ThreshedThought Yes. It would appear the Russkies have changed strategy somewhat, which would be in keeping with the relatively new BTG strategy, which is different from the 'old' Soviet doctrines, namely relatively autonomous units advancing, occupying points, then defending, etc.

@ThreshedThought So you want Kyiv, which is west of a crucial river, in a big country. So what do you do - you line the borders with strong formations, forcing the opponent to spread out his troops along the same lines. What you don't want is him reinforcing your main target: Kyiv.

@ThreshedThought So what do you do? You start feint attacks along the entire line to keep your opponent's forces pinned. This creates a "damned if you do, damned if you don't"-conundrum for your opponent: if you withdraw from the line to reinforce Kyiv, you're organising the enemy's strength.

@ThreshedThought I.e., you make a run west for Kyiv to reinforce, your enemy's link up behind you giving chase, you reach Kyiv - and then you find yourself confronted with 2/3rd of the enemy's forces surrounding Kyiv and laying siege. Or:

@ThreshedThought You stay where you are, holding the line against what are essentially feinting attacks, and you succeed in holding them. Nice! But meanwhile, two armies approach Kyiv from the north, on either side of the Dniepr. This obviously creates a different problem:

@ThreshedThought The Russian forces east of the Dniepr move south ASAP to try and close off the eastern entrance to Kyiv, just in case the Ukr forces to the east decide to retreat in the defense of Kyiv. (This now seems to be going awry for the Russians.)

@ThreshedThought Buuuut as the Russians, you're not quite sure whether this will work - you don't know what your opponent in the northeast is going to do yet. Is he going to stay put or is he going to withdraw to Kyiv to reinforce? Shoigu is waiting to see what's what...

@ThreshedThought ...until he commits the other half of his forces. This would also be in keeping with that age-old Russian doctrine: first you send in the cannon fodder to run down the enemy and create some breakthroughs, then you commit your veteran units to exploit the breakthroughs.

@ThreshedThought At that point, or so the Russians are perhaps aiming for, the Ukrainian forces - which are fewer in number - have spent most of their ammo, have been fighting for days, lack food, water and medicine and are really, really tired. That's when you hit with fresh troops.

@ThreshedThought So. Right now Ukr forces in the northeast have been able to severely slow down the Russian advance - but at what cost? How long will Ukr forces be able to keep this up? Can they manage to stay put under constant air attacks and thermobaric barrage AND withstand the second wave?

@ThreshedThought Because that second wave is coming.

@ThreshedThought War isn't just about logistics, it's also a numbers game, and whichever way you look at it, Russia has the advantage. Seeing that Kyiv is calling on Kyiivans to take up arms and apparently not call forces back west, a decision has been made to hold the line.

@ThreshedThought And I understand why. I do. The absolutely most logical thing to do would be to withdraw everyone west behind the Dniepr; blowing the bridges, concentrating your own forces in a small theater so as to be able to withstand attacks. But then you'd be giving up all of eastern Ukr.

@ThreshedThought And, one must admit: the main problem here is air superiority. Rus has it. Ukr is challenging it but so far Rus is overweight and has the initiative; Ukr is responsive, reacting to incursions like a fire brigade putting out fires. It's wearing what's left of the pilots down.

@ThreshedThought Increasing Russian air strength also means that once they've attained superiority, strategic or tactical withdrawals (west, say) become problematic because that creates vehicle columns on roads - easy pickings. So, as time progresses, Ukr situation is getting worse, not better.