c3k

There is a big shift towards unmanned aerial combat vehicles, a fancy name for unmanned fighters. The Loyal Wingman program is a precursor.  Removing the pilot from the airframe frees up a ton of weight...literally. Pilot, ejection seat,  life support gear, instruments: that's roughly a ton of weight. And, you're no longer limited to 9g (and that only for short times).
(And, one ton at 9gs means 18,000lbs of structure that does not have to be accounted for...or could be replaced with weapons, fuel, sensors, etc.)
The language is still catching up to the technology. Drone, quad, kamikaze, loitering munition, weapon truck, UCAV, etc...  
Optionally-manned equipment in combat is going to happen, both on the ground and in the air (as well as on/under the sea). 
These innovations will prove crucial when we battle Space Lobsters.    (Hey, you're still planning on making that, right?)

There is a big shift towards unmanned aerial combat vehicles, a fancy name for unmanned fighters. The Loyal Wingman program is a precursor.  Removing the pilot from the airframe frees up a ton of weight...literally. Pilot, ejection seat,  life support gear, instruments: that's roughly a ton of weight. And, you're no longer limited to 9g (and that only for short times).
(And, one ton at 9gs means 18,000lbs of structure that does not have to be accounted for...or could be replaced with weapons, fuel, sensors, etc.)
The language is still catching up to the technology. Drone, quad, kamikaze, loitering munition, weapon truck, UCAV, etc...  
Optionally-manned equipment in combat is going to happen, both on the ground and in the air (as well as on/under the sea). 
These innovations will prove crucial when we battle Space Lobsters.    (Hey, you're still planning on making that, right?)

My bold.
Yeah, that was me that linked this from Military History Visualized.
 
As to your points, here's a counterpoint: your UGV  IS the next tank.  It is the essence of mobile direct firepower. No one ever said the crew has to be inside it.   

You do know we did that a very long time ago? Like literally in 1996 when our Constitution was written? Any nazi symbols haven't stopped being a criminal offense for a second. Granted we included commies in there only 2015. Sadly.

Took me a while to get down. I set the Moskva 60 nm South of Odessa as reported. I then placed 3 Bayraktar drones near the Moskva. I had a Klub-M-Tel ground based SSM (only Russian based one I could find for Ukraine).
I has a NATO AWACS operating from NATO territory feeding intel data.
I fired the Klub SSMs at the Moskva using Engage Target Auto modeand when the entered the air search range of the Moskva I would move the Bayraktars over the Moskva and harassed it and I got hits. Seems like I had to be on top of the Moskva to get this to work. Below is a shot from one of my earlier unsuccessful attempts.
Klub-M-Tel does seem to have an attack profile different than what was actually used. I'll try Harpoons later.

Ive said it before, youve agreed (I think?) and so its old ground, but I'll just say it again. Maybe this time the people on the TV will hear me. 
The west has never broken out of its WWII mentality. WWII (adding in of course a conventional WWIII ca 1989 or Desert Storm) is how we are told war should look. Big sweeping troop movements, hundreds of thousands on the march, big lines dashing across maps sweeping all in front of it. In 1945 it made a lot of sense. Even in the death throes of the Nazi empire this is basically how the war played out. In winter 1944 the Germans attacked a weak point in the allied line, swept all before them, right up until they were stopped first by the herringbone at Bastogne and second by US&UK troops in Belgium. Then it was the Americans turn to do the same. Ditto for Desert Storm. This is the 'normative war' in the western brain. And of course how did it end? Germany surrendered in a tent, signing a piece of paper saying they give up, while the remains of their armies were rooted out of bombed out cities. And in Japan, a US battleship sailed into the port at the enemy capital to receive the surrender, complete with band and photographers. 
We learned a couple times since then that war isn't as much like that as we think it is, but in each case it shows up like an aberration, a scar. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, these were not fun wars for the US. Not popular or easily understandable. Its easy to describe the tactics of the war, but to chart its progression on a map? I havn't even seen professional historians try to write operationally on either one. These wars, IMO, have always been treated like exceptions to the norm. The war we dont want to fight. The war we were tricked into, not just politically but militarily by an enemy too cowardly to just stand up and fight a pitched armored battle (except of course Vietnam had those and we in the US just conveniently forget that fact). The reporting on these wars helps to reinforce the idea that the 'Peer-to-peer' great power war is still more like the mid-20th century than the 21st.
What were seeing in Ukraine though is that war has changed since 1945, asymmetry isn't the 'dirty trick' of the man in the black pajamas. Its the ideal endstate of a decentralized, networked, and fluid form of warfare. I have a very low opinion of the kind of "analysts" and "historians" you see popping up on TV and hocking their right-to-best-seller books. Perhaps you all have gotten that sense from me before. But I genuinely think that the people in this thread have a much better head, and more importantly a much more open an honest manner, than those you see on TV. Someone like Max Boot, and his stupid ****ing hat, isn't writing honest history. Hes writing history to sell a very specific viewpoint to a very specific group of policymakers. If you really read into what hes writing, hes trying to become THE COUNTERINSURGENCY GUY. He has his magic tonic (will also regrow your hair, he totally just wears that hat to look cool) and hes thinks its perfect for you. We had that Fox News Col from a few hundred pages ago, that guy is just doing the same thing. The talking heads get booked because they say what the networks and papers want them to, they either will say the line or, if youre a lucky booker, actually believe it to be true. Then a million people watch that show, or read that article, and say 'hey this guy is onto something, and dont you know he has a cool hat!' So of course when it comes to something like this, their off the shelf solutions are unworkable. Because they dont understand the problem, or are even honest about what they do and do not know.  
WWII is great, because, we won! Unless youre Max Boot in which case 1960-1964 is your paradigm because we could have won if people had just bought the tonic hes now repackaged. But now we see something outside of that mold, which defies easy classification. If you were looking at the direction war has been going in the last few years you see things you recognize. Hell I wont call myself the most forward looking person, but I still see a lot of the 1970s and 80s in all this too. But if youre stuck in the 1960s, or worse the 1940s all this is quite surprising. One of the best examples of this was Reddit, where in the runup to the crisis people were asking genuinely if the US was going to have to start drafting people again. That should say a lot about where the public's head is in regards to warfare. And the mass media, especially the mass news media, put it there. 

^^^
My bold, above.
The Russian doctrine has been shown to be deeply flawed. They not only need to come up with a new doctrine, but they need to re-equip based on that doctrine, and re-train based on it.
Oh, and whatever that new doctrine will be? If they want it to be an EFFECTIVE doctrine, they will game it out, test it, stress it, and modify it as needed.
It would be very difficult for any nation to do this within 5 years...if it's a nation willing to self-examination and critical, truthful, review. Russia is none of these.
Putin (because he is the driving force here) MUST attack. He's lost too much not to keep going. Can you imagine the internal dialogue going on right now? No general will say, "Pull back to the borders and sue for peace." They'll get replaced and, if they're lucky, just fired. 
As can be seen by the Black Sea Fleet admiral, defeat is being blamed on the individual in command.
This is not the atmosphere that is conducive to being flexible with doctrine.

^^^
My bold, above.
The Russian doctrine has been shown to be deeply flawed. They not only need to come up with a new doctrine, but they need to re-equip based on that doctrine, and re-train based on it.
Oh, and whatever that new doctrine will be? If they want it to be an EFFECTIVE doctrine, they will game it out, test it, stress it, and modify it as needed.
It would be very difficult for any nation to do this within 5 years...if it's a nation willing to self-examination and critical, truthful, review. Russia is none of these.
Putin (because he is the driving force here) MUST attack. He's lost too much not to keep going. Can you imagine the internal dialogue going on right now? No general will say, "Pull back to the borders and sue for peace." They'll get replaced and, if they're lucky, just fired. 
As can be seen by the Black Sea Fleet admiral, defeat is being blamed on the individual in command.
This is not the atmosphere that is conducive to being flexible with doctrine.

Looks like regular, the testing scenario also incorrectly put the scenario at day time, clear weather condition. 
I did a testing myself. Even with correct parameter, night time, heavy rain , sea state 5, a novice Moskva can easily defeat a salvo of 16 subsonic Harpoonski.
An EMCON D Moskva can detect the ASM at 16nm away and begin the engagement at 12nm away.
An EMCON A Moskva first detect ASM at 10nm away , the ASM turn on the weapon seeker radar there, broadcast their presence to Moskva . With a 18 seconds OODA cool down SAM left the tube at 7nm away. Most of ASM will be intercepted.
 
But, there is one trick to make a two Harpoonski strike successfully penetrate a radar silence Moskva's defense. Don't use automatic fire. Use BoL fire.  First do a calculation to predict where the Moskva will be when the ASM reach that area. Mark a point on the map then make the ASM aim at that point , in BOL mode ASM will turn on their radar there. It is supposed to be somewhere very close to Moskva.    They will hit the Moskva before her OODA cool down.

Neutrons are not stopped well by steel. To stop neutrons you need hydrogenous material - water, plastic. Gamma rays are stopped well by steel. The ceramics used fall somewhere in the middle. Concrete is used as shielding for example, and atomic mass wise is in the ballpark of ceramics. Steel can be pretty much transparent to neutrons, a fact we have to take into account in shield designs where a structure may be made up of a web of steel beams. A transverse stiffener in a wall can be a superhighway for neutrons in a direct line of it.
Dave

@BeondTheGrave @OldSarge @G.I. Joe
And other, who asked about Neptune ASM
The missile R-360 of Neptune complex is not a version of Kh-35U, though has similar parameters. Yes, it has very similar hull, and initially since R&D works have started as far as in 2013 or earlier, the missile should be as  localized and upgraded analog of Kh-35. This gave to Russian propagandists a reason to claim "Stupid Ukrainians proud because could copy old Soviet missile ahahaha!", so far like their claims "BTR-4 is reworked BTR-70". Russians in own chauvinism believed that without Russia all industry in Ukraine completely declined and we can't develop nothing own, but upgrade USSR lagacy. But Soviet/Russian Kh-35 was really "long played" project, started as far as in 1977, first prelimilary design was ready only in 1983, brought to tests only in 1992 and adopted to service in 2003! And Kh-35U with some improvements, like coordinates transmittion via satellite, was adopted in 2015
Currently Russian navy use this missile in next versions: Kh-35 (AS-20) for planes and helicopters, Bal (SSC-6) - coastal missile complex, Uran (SS-N-25) - ship-bases missile complex
Turning back to Ukrainian R-360 - since 2013 the missile have changed at least homing heads (or even three) and many more. First test launches were in 2018, but despite on success, there were found many problems in homing, flight stability also sea-skimming mode had enough hight altitude of flight. In 2019 new tests with new homing head and some constructive changes were conducted, but anyway missile demanded many finalization works. Also there was main problem - previous launches were conducted with USA aid - they detected target and transmitted coordinates to launcher vehicle via own sattelite. Ukraine has been developed own targeting radar Mineral-U, but encountered with many R&D problems, so manufacturer tests were passed only in October 2021 and two radars has been preparing to state test program, but unknown either it was started before a war or not. So, in present time Mioneral-U is nor adopted, but probably can be used in test mode. So, the strike at "Admiral Essen" and  "Moskva" could be done both via US satellite and Mineral-U tergeting. 
Also results of test showed that the carrier of missile complex and radar, based on 8x8 KRAZ-7634NE has low reliability and because of bad financial situation on KRAZ plant, technological problems and inability to provide timely technical support and implement constructive changes, there was assumed a decision to change the carrier to Tatra T815 (Chech Republic). Both Mineral-U radars were produced on Tatra chassis, but crossing of RK-360MC on Tatra took some time, so first battalion of Neptune have to be operational in April 2022 only. To this time the unit, armed with this complex - 65th coastal missile battalion had on armament only one launcher on KRAZ chassis and support vehciles. There is unknown either was a missiles or not, because in 2021, when this battalion was established, there was an information he had only dummy of missiles and first real nissiles have to arrive also in 2022. So, this is one possible answer, why Neptunes have awake only now. First reason - they got a missiles only now, second reason - they could have very short number of missiles and kept its for case of enemy landing attempt n Odesa area. But since new missiles issued and UK/Norway offered own ASMs, they could fire free.   
So, about R-360 pararameters: 7 ... 280 km range, 150 kg warhead, velocity - 900 km/h, radar/satellite coordinates and targeting aquisitoin, seeker field of viev +/- 60 deg (even more than Harpoon), sea-skimming mode, seeking during maneuvering, EW protection, maximum range of launcher from the sea shore - 25 km
Composition of battalion:
Three batteries per 2 launchers: 6 launchers USPU-360 (each has 4 tubes of R-360), deployment time 15 minutes
Technical battery:
6 transport-loader vehicles TZM-360 (4 R-360 missiles on each), deployment time 10 minutes, reloading time 20 minutes
6 transport vehicles TM-360 (4 R-360 missiles on each)
1 mobile command post RKP-360, deployment time 10 minutes.
1 targeting radar (optional) Mineral-U
So one battalion should have 72 missiles. Full salvo in 24 missiles simultainously is possible.
First version of launcher USPU-360 on KRAZ-7634NE 

Serial version of launcher USPU-360 on Tatra T815

Transport-loader vehicle TZM-360 first version (KRAZ)
 
Serial versin of transport-loader vehcile TZM-360 (Tatra)

Transport vehicle TM-360 (KRAZ)

Transport vehcile TM-360 (Tatra), serial variant

Mobile command post RKP-360, first variant

Mobile command post RKP-360 (Tatra), serial variant

Mineral-U radar

This failing seems to be par for the course across the board. Is it possible that Russia decided 30 years ago that they needed to keep their Navy afloat and come out with a few new air and ground toys to act like they were a world power? Looking at it from the aspect of they want to be big and tough but know that they aren't ever going to fight a peer to peer conflict because NATO is not going to attack them? Figuring that they had enough quantity of brute force leftovers to handle their wayward colonies like Chechnya? 
It makes sense when you look at their force compositions and equipment. They come out with a fancy new tank and equip a battalion or two of their "elite" formations and everyone else is in old gear. Same with most of their other platforms. The western army's don't have active units running around in M60's, Chieftains and Leopard 1's. We've seen base grade T-72's on up, a virtual smorgasbord of variants throughout the different units. Same with their IFV's. They make enough fancy stuff to point to and say watch out for us but they don't field 4800 up to date MBT's equally spread across their formations. Why? 
If they were truly trying to defend against NATO or planned on attacking any peer country they would have had to have kept their whole first line up to date. They have to know that, again there aren't a lot of secrets as to what is in the ground forces of their adversaries and the capabilities of most of our weapons systems. If the people on this board know the difference between the air defense systems on the Moskva and an Aegis they certainly have to. If they haven't updated those systems in 40 years then they were never seriously planning to defend themselves from us or attack us.  
I know their corruption is systemic and has caused a lot of their problems as well but they couldn't realistically believe that what they have for an army could have challenged NATO or even the US on it's own. That isn't even counting in the air or on the sea. There have been plenty of examples of western warfighting capability over the last 30 years so they can't be in the dark as to just how far below the bar they would be in an armed conflict with the bigger contestants. They just can't be that stupid or uninformed. Call them what you want but I don't believe stupid is accurate. Staggeringly poor gamblers at the moment, yes.
So with the mindset of looking tough mostly for bluff because they knew their economy couldn't support a rival war machine to NATO (they tried that and lost) but having enough to systematically subdue the former regions as needed looks like a possible compromise that could have placed them in this situation. It also falls in line with what others have said about this being Putin's Pearl Harbor moment. Watching Ukraine they knew that they had a quickly closing window of opportunity to act and if they didn't jump now it would be impossible in a couple more years.
Of course as we have seen their assessments and gambles on western support and the fighting spirit of the UA were a little off the mark. I think a lot of that was based on the assumption that the UA hadn't yet developed much from the conflict in 2014 and the same mistake that most of the MSM "experts" and simply looked at the basic math without accounting for all the other factors involved. The assumption of more tanks and airplanes wins.  
You might say, "But, but, what about the Kremlin's rhetoric of how they are defending against an aggressive NATO and will defeat them!" or "Why would they develop the costly technologically advanced weapons systems if they were only going to beat on Georgia?". Well, to keep up the pretense to their people and have pretty toys on May 9th. Seriously, especially in an autocratic regime you have to have an enemy. You need to be the strong guy protecting the poor people of your nation from those foreign devils. The fancy toys inspire confidence in your leadership and make them feel safe, therefore you make them feel safe. Then smash a small state from time to time and make sure you let them know that you barely saved them from ruin at the hands of the Moldovan masses backed by the dastardly British Intelligence.
And all that would make sense as to how we got to where we are today. 
Thoughts?

Actually at the end of the day we are a wargaming community with deep interest (and some expertise) in the history of warfare.  This is the first peer-on-peer conventional war of the 21st century and likely the most intense since the Iran-Iraq war back in the 80s, so you can understand why it is kind of a big deal.
As to the games, no small amount of effort you see here is to try and figure out how to make CM more realistic, particularly the modern titles.  So let’s call this game design in contact.   
Finally we are about analysis and assessment that cut through a lot of the noise out there, so we have seen a lot of people migrate here because we try and remain unbiased- as far as we can as we stand with Ukraine on this one- and offer a different picture than a lot of mainstream military analysis.  Moreover, we will toot our own horn as we have been noted as out in front of events thanks in large part to information sharing and a robust online debate.
We are also on the internet and get whackies, which have been warned and in some cases banned.  
That all said, do not worry BFC is still in the gaming business but right now they have their eyes on this history in the making.  They (and “we”: check out CMCW while you are in the gift shop!), will be back to making the game series you love shortly but right now the best good we can do is try and keep a clear eye on things and keep each other informed while supporting those of us in the middle of all this.

I'll second the book recommendation. Great read.  No way was it other than a planned hammer-blow with great hopes on its success.

True.  And if I can channel the absent JasonC for a moment,  most of Zhukov's successes came when he was working with Vasiliev. Without Vasiliev, Zhukov gave us such gems as operation Mars which was such a disaster that it was expunged from the Soviet histories. 

The deficit of yellow tape ) 

Gotta catch ‘em all:
 
Even him:
 

First visually confirmed destroyed 9P162 Kornet-T tank destroyer. This is BMP-3- based vehcile, which has been coming to service since 2013-2014 year.
Kornet-T has 12 9M133 (AT-14) missiles in autoloader and additional 4 in stock for manual reload. Launcher has two tubes, two missiles can be lauched and guided in one target simultainously. Also the portable launcher 9P163 can be assembled for the usage outside of vehicle.
Vehicle is equipped with 1PN80 Kornet-TP thermal sight with detection range in 4000 m and recognition range in 3500 m

 

Romanivka was not captured by Russian troops. Throughout the battle for Kyiv, a humanitarian corridor was organized there, which allowed the evacuation of civilians from Irpin Bucha and Gostomel. I myself evacuated along this route on 03/05/22, when the Russians entered Irpin and street fighting began. This route was under heavy artillery fire for about 3 weeks.

How would a policy of neutrality towards Ukraine have enabled it to defend against Russia?
2014+ Ukrainian Army was slaughtered by Putin.
Western support built what is working today. Without western Intel, all these ambushes would not be happening. Without western financing, no Ukrainian drones would fly, no NVGs, no nothing. Without western leadership the Ukrainian army would still fight with Soviet doctrine and lose.
What we are seeing right now is a result NOT of Minsk and Putin appeasement but of US/UK policy to bolster Ukraine in case of evident Russian aggression, despite concern of "worsening relation with Russia".
He does not care about economics. He does not care about his or our People. He cares about the past and everyone west of him is an enemy complicit in that "greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century" to quote Putin himself.
Neutrality towards Ukraine would have in fact put Putin exactly where he wanted to be.

Some people already have their world engulfed in war and are fighting so others don't have to

Yep, they are testing how far they can go and they surely won´t stop.
From the russian perspective it so far looks like this:
- Attacking a neighbouring country - No significant military response by NATO
- Shelling civilians and bombing them to heaven - No significant military response by NATO
- Raping women and children - No significant military response by NATO
- Torturing and killing civilians - No significant military response by NATO
- List-operated killing squads against civilians - No significant military response by NATO
- Bombing and killing fleeing civilians at train station - No significant military response by NATO
- Using a chemical agent in Mariupol - ...
and so on and so forth...

Wonderful. Every russian ammo depot should look like this...
 
 

Re: the journos and the cat.
The cat was probably there for 10 minutes, certainly the correspondents couldn't expect it to hang around. So as an interlude from the horror, it was probably welcome. The horror was going to still be there once the cat left. Many people like cats. Some people like cats a lot. Cats make stories people read. Good stories keep people engaged with the affairs that are being reported as "cat-related". Is this a bad thing? I don't think it is. All hail our feline overlords.