sburke

Well kudos for trying to wrestle with it.  There is a lot in the wind with respect to warfare right now. All of my theories could easily collapse tomorrow.  I spent the first year of this war, mouth agape, trying to figure out what was going on.  The second year, things started to form, but they are nothing more than shadows we can see from the outside.
Now into the third year, I am convinced of some things, which if wargaming has taught me anything, is about the time Bil H drops the bomb and blows up my entire plan.

I think you are mixing a lot of themes here to the detriment of objective analysis.  The Soviet system was designed to create as much mass as possible and project it at an opponent.  It may appear "cruel and uncaring" but in reality it was built on the brutal lessons of the Eastern Front and how a quick violent short war was far better than a drawn out one.
We vie for the same aspiration of short wars, we simply lean on technology instead of human capital.  And frankly we have no real proof either system is truly superior.
The Soviet system is a poorer fit for modern democracies; however, before we sit too high on that horse, lets not forget democracies fought in WW1 too, and were very able to throw human capital at a problem at great loss.
The reality is that there is nothing inherently "wrong" or "evil" about the Soviet military system - talking political ideology out of the equation - so long as one asks that system to do what it was designed to do.  The exact same thing goes for the Western military system.  In this war, both sides have tried the western approach...and it did not work.  Now they are in a grinding war of attrition for which the western systems is also a very bad fit.
Nor is there proof that democracies can't do attrition either.  We have proven that we are very capable at spending a lot of lives to win.  What I oppose is this reoccurring narrative that somehow all the problems all sides are having are "Soviet legacy" and any successes are somehow western modernization; this is simply not proven by what we have seen.
Russia has fallen back onto a more Soviet-like approach to force generation and employment...and clearly it is working for them.  They are able to hold ground and even conduct tactical advances even with appalling losses.  The UA is moving much farther to the western doctrine, and frankly some of it is working for them too.  They are able to hold, strike deep and have very high precision.  
The weaknesses of either system are also on display for all to see as well.  For the Soviet system it is rigidity and logistical weight, which is untenable on the modern battlefield.  For the Western system it is the serious lack of depth and capacity.
I suspect that each side is evolving to some sort of hybrid, or at least trying to.  Either way, it does us little good to point at every problem and go "difficulty upscaling due to Soviet legacy"  which frankly does not even make sense based on what Soviet legacy really was.
As to that last part I highlighted - well yes and no.  The Mongols created smart fast mass and took over half the planet, so not entire a new idea.  The Soviet system could generate modern mech and armor forces like no one else.  Their operational art was very advanced on how to employ that mass.  In many ways they really are a defining school of modern warfare, the counter-point to the western schools.  We have no actual war to try and decide which system was better to worse to be honest.  The Gulf War was the closest but it really was a poor analogue.  This war has shadows of the Soviet system but overlapped with other schools.

This actually made me chuckle.
I expect it had no problem making contact with the ground.
 

The Boeing guy in charge of doors just got a job there.

The Boeing guy in charge of doors just got a job there.

This actually made me chuckle.
I expect it had no problem making contact with the ground.
 

This actually made me chuckle.
I expect it had no problem making contact with the ground.
 

This actually made me chuckle.
I expect it had no problem making contact with the ground.
 

The Boeing guy in charge of doors just got a job there.

The Boeing guy in charge of doors just got a job there.

The Boeing guy in charge of doors just got a job there.

The Boeing guy in charge of doors just got a job there.

The Boeing guy in charge of doors just got a job there.

The Boeing guy in charge of doors just got a job there.

do you recall at all what happened in Bucha?  I mean FFS what exactly do you think is gonna happen with negotiations with Russia?  JFC people have such poor memories or just don't give a rat's a55 for reality when they have an agenda.

The Boeing guy in charge of doors just got a job there.

The Boeing guy in charge of doors just got a job there.

The other question is, what are they counting that matters?  Maybe Russia can sustain MBT losses, maybe continue to scrounge artillery shells etc.  But those A50 AEW aircraft are in short supply and appear to be an endangered species.  The UA seems to have a laser focus on strategic assets that have a downstream effectiveness on Russia's ability to fight this war. 
As you said a while back - "- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly."
If the UA can further deplete Russia's C4 capability more options become available to wage strategic strikes on Russia's infrastructure as well as find opportunities to use the F16 aircraft as they become available.

The other question is, what are they counting that matters?  Maybe Russia can sustain MBT losses, maybe continue to scrounge artillery shells etc.  But those A50 AEW aircraft are in short supply and appear to be an endangered species.  The UA seems to have a laser focus on strategic assets that have a downstream effectiveness on Russia's ability to fight this war. 
As you said a while back - "- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly."
If the UA can further deplete Russia's C4 capability more options become available to wage strategic strikes on Russia's infrastructure as well as find opportunities to use the F16 aircraft as they become available.

What do we figure are the base requirements for Russia to maintain AEW coverage.? I would find it hard to believe they would forego any coverage at all over their Far East bases.  They need to cover the Moscow/St Petersburg axis and then the actual war zone. You need multiple shifts and time for maintenance.  What is the minimum they need to avoid gaps or start prioritizing away from Far East coverage- assuming they haven't done so already.
 
Heh heh just had an amusing thought.  I guess Russia won't be doing another major military exercise with China.  Be real embarrassing to show up with T55s and no AEW craft.  🤣

What do we figure are the base requirements for Russia to maintain AEW coverage.? I would find it hard to believe they would forego any coverage at all over their Far East bases.  They need to cover the Moscow/St Petersburg axis and then the actual war zone. You need multiple shifts and time for maintenance.  What is the minimum they need to avoid gaps or start prioritizing away from Far East coverage- assuming they haven't done so already.
 
Heh heh just had an amusing thought.  I guess Russia won't be doing another major military exercise with China.  Be real embarrassing to show up with T55s and no AEW craft.  🤣

The other question is, what are they counting that matters?  Maybe Russia can sustain MBT losses, maybe continue to scrounge artillery shells etc.  But those A50 AEW aircraft are in short supply and appear to be an endangered species.  The UA seems to have a laser focus on strategic assets that have a downstream effectiveness on Russia's ability to fight this war. 
As you said a while back - "- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly."
If the UA can further deplete Russia's C4 capability more options become available to wage strategic strikes on Russia's infrastructure as well as find opportunities to use the F16 aircraft as they become available.

The other question is, what are they counting that matters?  Maybe Russia can sustain MBT losses, maybe continue to scrounge artillery shells etc.  But those A50 AEW aircraft are in short supply and appear to be an endangered species.  The UA seems to have a laser focus on strategic assets that have a downstream effectiveness on Russia's ability to fight this war. 
As you said a while back - "- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly."
If the UA can further deplete Russia's C4 capability more options become available to wage strategic strikes on Russia's infrastructure as well as find opportunities to use the F16 aircraft as they become available.

The other question is, what are they counting that matters?  Maybe Russia can sustain MBT losses, maybe continue to scrounge artillery shells etc.  But those A50 AEW aircraft are in short supply and appear to be an endangered species.  The UA seems to have a laser focus on strategic assets that have a downstream effectiveness on Russia's ability to fight this war. 
As you said a while back - "- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly."
If the UA can further deplete Russia's C4 capability more options become available to wage strategic strikes on Russia's infrastructure as well as find opportunities to use the F16 aircraft as they become available.

The other question is, what are they counting that matters?  Maybe Russia can sustain MBT losses, maybe continue to scrounge artillery shells etc.  But those A50 AEW aircraft are in short supply and appear to be an endangered species.  The UA seems to have a laser focus on strategic assets that have a downstream effectiveness on Russia's ability to fight this war. 
As you said a while back - "- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly."
If the UA can further deplete Russia's C4 capability more options become available to wage strategic strikes on Russia's infrastructure as well as find opportunities to use the F16 aircraft as they become available.