BletchleyGeek

Hello, I am Vladimir Putin and this is Jackass.

On a second thought, that video is not that different from the poignant art produced by North Korean illustrators

 

That was a great find @keas66, thank you! I think many concerns around where this conflict may be going are justified. I would like just to share a few thoughts of mine on this.
Today I had an online chat with a wargaming friend based on Seattle. As we were catching up, it became apparent to me that he was quite anxious and worried about the implicit threat posed by Putin declaring Russian nuclear forces to adopt a "higher" degree of readiness. He lives close to the water, across the huge US Navy shipyards in Puget Sound. An obvious target for an SS-25 Topol or worse. You don't need to "play" a bit with this little thing
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
to be worried.
That somebody implies a threat to start a nuclear war is something sure to attract attention and focus the minds. But to what end? Is he really going to trigger the end of the world (for Russia definitely would be the end of the world, and probably cripple our cities and economies for generations too)?
Now, let's say that you're leaving a bar in Long Beach late at night, walking to your car, and the another car stops and some dude walks out with a gun and puts it to your head (real story from a good friend from LA). Do you give them your wallet? Or you turn around, look into his eyes and dare him to shoot?
In the real world story, obviously my friend gave away the wallet. Did that make them a coward or a really smart person? I want to think it was smart because all the incentives were for that gunman to shoot at them if they weren't cooperative: there was no real possibility of retribution or "negative reward" if they were uncooperative and finished off.
Putin isn't even pulling out the gun, or putting it on top of the table, or anything like that, more like giving an order to "make sure that there are no birds roosting in the launchers, and every vehicle has their battery". Which given what we're seeing in Ukraine at the moment, it may already be a tall order.
He also doesn't know for sure how good the US anti-ballistic missile defence systems are. He doesn't know how effective the US and British SSBNs can be at making sure that him and anyone related to him would have a horrible death within 15 minutes of the first Russian ICBM taking off. What he knows is that if he started a nuclear war there would heaps of "negative reward" flowing the way of everyone, and first and foremost his people. Maybe he doesn't give a turd about his people, but I am pretty sure he gives one about his legacy. And what a great legacy would be to have all major cities in Russia become graveyards, and Siberia gingerly colonised by the Chinese in 30 years or so. Sure, you have also ruined Europe, the US and anybody else they're targeting, but not really a great legacy, by any reckoning.
Maybe he's a psychopath and doesn't give a damn about his legacy or anything or anyone else. Then we're already royally screwed guys, and we should all check out the NUKEMAP app to see where we should be relocating. Unless someone produces a time machine from their garage (John Kettler?) and goes pays a visit to Harry S. Truman to convince him to forget about the work at Lost Alamos, and give the go-ahead for Operation Olympic.
Let me consider another counterfactual, and a more serious one. Let's go back to 1938. And now let's imagine that the French and British tell Mr. Hitler to sod off, and he goes and launches a "special operation" on Czechoslovakia. Without straining credibility, let's consider that the 1938 Wehrmacht gets hopelessly bogged down trying to break through the Czech fortifications at the border (which were quite serious). Let's imagine those Panzer I and Panzer II being taken out by the same anti-tank rifles and guns from Brno that then armed the Nazi war machine early in World War 2. Would have the Third Reich then "escalated" and launched an attack on Poland (or France)? Nope. Can Czechoslovakia counterattack and go all the way to Berlin to force a German surrender? Nope.
I think we're right now at an scenario very much like the counterfactual above. The blatant difference with respect to 1938 is that Mr. Hitler's alter ego now has the means to "escalate" or to credibly threaten with escalation. But giving the appearance of having the means for an escalation doesn't mean that those means 1) are ready or 2) they are really willing to use them.
 

On a second thought, that video is not that different from the poignant art produced by North Korean illustrators

 

That was a great find @keas66, thank you! I think many concerns around where this conflict may be going are justified. I would like just to share a few thoughts of mine on this.
Today I had an online chat with a wargaming friend based on Seattle. As we were catching up, it became apparent to me that he was quite anxious and worried about the implicit threat posed by Putin declaring Russian nuclear forces to adopt a "higher" degree of readiness. He lives close to the water, across the huge US Navy shipyards in Puget Sound. An obvious target for an SS-25 Topol or worse. You don't need to "play" a bit with this little thing
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
to be worried.
That somebody implies a threat to start a nuclear war is something sure to attract attention and focus the minds. But to what end? Is he really going to trigger the end of the world (for Russia definitely would be the end of the world, and probably cripple our cities and economies for generations too)?
Now, let's say that you're leaving a bar in Long Beach late at night, walking to your car, and the another car stops and some dude walks out with a gun and puts it to your head (real story from a good friend from LA). Do you give them your wallet? Or you turn around, look into his eyes and dare him to shoot?
In the real world story, obviously my friend gave away the wallet. Did that make them a coward or a really smart person? I want to think it was smart because all the incentives were for that gunman to shoot at them if they weren't cooperative: there was no real possibility of retribution or "negative reward" if they were uncooperative and finished off.
Putin isn't even pulling out the gun, or putting it on top of the table, or anything like that, more like giving an order to "make sure that there are no birds roosting in the launchers, and every vehicle has their battery". Which given what we're seeing in Ukraine at the moment, it may already be a tall order.
He also doesn't know for sure how good the US anti-ballistic missile defence systems are. He doesn't know how effective the US and British SSBNs can be at making sure that him and anyone related to him would have a horrible death within 15 minutes of the first Russian ICBM taking off. What he knows is that if he started a nuclear war there would heaps of "negative reward" flowing the way of everyone, and first and foremost his people. Maybe he doesn't give a turd about his people, but I am pretty sure he gives one about his legacy. And what a great legacy would be to have all major cities in Russia become graveyards, and Siberia gingerly colonised by the Chinese in 30 years or so. Sure, you have also ruined Europe, the US and anybody else they're targeting, but not really a great legacy, by any reckoning.
Maybe he's a psychopath and doesn't give a damn about his legacy or anything or anyone else. Then we're already royally screwed guys, and we should all check out the NUKEMAP app to see where we should be relocating. Unless someone produces a time machine from their garage (John Kettler?) and goes pays a visit to Harry S. Truman to convince him to forget about the work at Lost Alamos, and give the go-ahead for Operation Olympic.
Let me consider another counterfactual, and a more serious one. Let's go back to 1938. And now let's imagine that the French and British tell Mr. Hitler to sod off, and he goes and launches a "special operation" on Czechoslovakia. Without straining credibility, let's consider that the 1938 Wehrmacht gets hopelessly bogged down trying to break through the Czech fortifications at the border (which were quite serious). Let's imagine those Panzer I and Panzer II being taken out by the same anti-tank rifles and guns from Brno that then armed the Nazi war machine early in World War 2. Would have the Third Reich then "escalated" and launched an attack on Poland (or France)? Nope. Can Czechoslovakia counterattack and go all the way to Berlin to force a German surrender? Nope.
I think we're right now at an scenario very much like the counterfactual above. The blatant difference with respect to 1938 is that Mr. Hitler's alter ego now has the means to "escalate" or to credibly threaten with escalation. But giving the appearance of having the means for an escalation doesn't mean that those means 1) are ready or 2) they are really willing to use them.
 

It is definitely going that way, sad to say.
But I'm also hoping that there are enough ethnic Russians fighting for the UA, so that the wannabe ethnic cleansers (which sadly may include some folks on here 😒) don't get to have their day, a la Croatia's savage retaliatory expulsion of Serbs (and Bosniaks) from the.... wait for it... Krajina region.
There is no future for Ukraine as an 'ethnic state' along the lines of the Baltics. Too many groups have crisscrossed, colonised and intermarried in that territory for too long. Federalism and (hopefully) stronger links to Central Europe, plus better government at home, must be the future; the alternative is disintegration and impoverishment, except perhaps in the Galicia zone and Odessa (?)
Thoughts, anyone else?

Well said, especially this last.

That was a great find @keas66, thank you! I think many concerns around where this conflict may be going are justified. I would like just to share a few thoughts of mine on this.
Today I had an online chat with a wargaming friend based on Seattle. As we were catching up, it became apparent to me that he was quite anxious and worried about the implicit threat posed by Putin declaring Russian nuclear forces to adopt a "higher" degree of readiness. He lives close to the water, across the huge US Navy shipyards in Puget Sound. An obvious target for an SS-25 Topol or worse. You don't need to "play" a bit with this little thing
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
to be worried.
That somebody implies a threat to start a nuclear war is something sure to attract attention and focus the minds. But to what end? Is he really going to trigger the end of the world (for Russia definitely would be the end of the world, and probably cripple our cities and economies for generations too)?
Now, let's say that you're leaving a bar in Long Beach late at night, walking to your car, and the another car stops and some dude walks out with a gun and puts it to your head (real story from a good friend from LA). Do you give them your wallet? Or you turn around, look into his eyes and dare him to shoot?
In the real world story, obviously my friend gave away the wallet. Did that make them a coward or a really smart person? I want to think it was smart because all the incentives were for that gunman to shoot at them if they weren't cooperative: there was no real possibility of retribution or "negative reward" if they were uncooperative and finished off.
Putin isn't even pulling out the gun, or putting it on top of the table, or anything like that, more like giving an order to "make sure that there are no birds roosting in the launchers, and every vehicle has their battery". Which given what we're seeing in Ukraine at the moment, it may already be a tall order.
He also doesn't know for sure how good the US anti-ballistic missile defence systems are. He doesn't know how effective the US and British SSBNs can be at making sure that him and anyone related to him would have a horrible death within 15 minutes of the first Russian ICBM taking off. What he knows is that if he started a nuclear war there would heaps of "negative reward" flowing the way of everyone, and first and foremost his people. Maybe he doesn't give a turd about his people, but I am pretty sure he gives one about his legacy. And what a great legacy would be to have all major cities in Russia become graveyards, and Siberia gingerly colonised by the Chinese in 30 years or so. Sure, you have also ruined Europe, the US and anybody else they're targeting, but not really a great legacy, by any reckoning.
Maybe he's a psychopath and doesn't give a damn about his legacy or anything or anyone else. Then we're already royally screwed guys, and we should all check out the NUKEMAP app to see where we should be relocating. Unless someone produces a time machine from their garage (John Kettler?) and goes pays a visit to Harry S. Truman to convince him to forget about the work at Lost Alamos, and give the go-ahead for Operation Olympic.
Let me consider another counterfactual, and a more serious one. Let's go back to 1938. And now let's imagine that the French and British tell Mr. Hitler to sod off, and he goes and launches a "special operation" on Czechoslovakia. Without straining credibility, let's consider that the 1938 Wehrmacht gets hopelessly bogged down trying to break through the Czech fortifications at the border (which were quite serious). Let's imagine those Panzer I and Panzer II being taken out by the same anti-tank rifles and guns from Brno that then armed the Nazi war machine early in World War 2. Would have the Third Reich then "escalated" and launched an attack on Poland (or France)? Nope. Can Czechoslovakia counterattack and go all the way to Berlin to force a German surrender? Nope.
I think we're right now at an scenario very much like the counterfactual above. The blatant difference with respect to 1938 is that Mr. Hitler's alter ego now has the means to "escalate" or to credibly threaten with escalation. But giving the appearance of having the means for an escalation doesn't mean that those means 1) are ready or 2) they are really willing to use them.
 

Yes, we seem to be in a period where leg infantry squads with precision shoulder fired rockets can single-shot-kill pretty much anything from bunkers to MBTs to helos to jets at standoff ranges, as well as their supply vehicles.
For defenders, the 'low tech'* counter is to send out their own hunter teams on foot, with the ability to call in artillery to fix and kill intruders approaching within missile range of the defenses. But that requires excellent tactical comms and training which will take some time to refine.
I also expect the Russians to use the nasty old tactic of creating 'denied zones' by scattering millions of cheap (Chinese?) plastic mines and bomblets, which will sadly be killing civilians for another 2 generations.
* 'High tech' being mainly drones

Yes, but it was never about NATO expanding east, it was countries that happened to be east of the NATO group of the time that felt threatened by a future Russia and wanting to join.
There's no reason to join a defensive organisation unless you distrust your neighbour  - and given Russian behaviour, they weren't wrong to want to join.
Do you really think that Russia wouldn't be bullying the Baltics just as in Georgia, Moldova etc. if those countries had stayed out of NATO ?

@kraze - five medals isn't 'that many medals' however ...

And I never shot anybody ... just got shot at a bit and blown up once.

Aggressive.
He refers to the history of Brandenburg, trying to make the point that Brandenburg was forced to chose between becoming a naval power and becoming a land power. This is part of his larger argument that, for reasons of court politics, Russia failed to develop a clear focus in land power primacy, and so this explains why it is today struggling. He argues that Prussia abandoned its naval power colonial aspirations in the 18th century to become a "land power max" country. Setting aside the rather burdensome video metaphor, this is pretty roundly wrong and ignores nearly 100 years of the countries history which led to this choice. Brandenburg was devastated by the 30yrs War, it had been forced to repeatedly 'pick sides' at the point of a pike as its military was not powerful enough to preserve the country from outside threats. This, not the failure of any maritime policy, led to the rise of Brandenburg as a land power. Robert Citino, in his book (which is not a textbook, and is very much worth the read) highlights that this initial choice for security transformed after the union with Prussia into a question for a land corridor. Excellence in Prussian arms was developed as early as the Scanian of 1678  in which the Prussian army famously mounted sleds and conducted a rapid winter march from its quarters into the depths of Swedish occupied Germany. So dramatic, and important, was this to the Prussian ethos that Heinz Guderian himself said the campaign was one of his inspirations for his ideas. 
Anyway I dispute even the basic premise of this 'naval max or land max' analysis. Is too brutish. The US is the preeminent global land, sea, and air power. Dont think most countries would challenge that really, except China. Who is currently a major land power trying to go to sea. And of course the British had the RN in the early 20th century. The British Army in 1938 was right up there with the German in terms of modernization, thought it was small. And nobody remembers that the British also had the largest volunteer army in the world, the British Army in India had almost 3.5mil volunteers in 1945. More even than the US. Lots of people like to talk about the German system, but really the British were probably still the worlds leading power right before WWII, they had the biggest and best navy, the biggest army, and one of the best motorized cores as well. 
Later, the poster discusses the history of Soviet maritime strategy. But its also pretty off, to be honest. Documents are quite clear really that Stalin wanted, after WWII, to build a navy which he thought would be able to challenge the RN and USN for control of the seas. But, just as important, Stalin saw the navy as a prestige tool. Some have tried to explain the Second World War, especially the war in Asia, as having been driven in part by the unequal distribution of battleship allotments in the interwar naval treaties. While I dont think he thought in those exact terms, Stalin felt that capital ships equated to great power status on some level and so he wanted them built. The plans were laid out and IIRC the keels of several ships were laid, but Stalin's death interrupted this program. Khrushchev diverted those resources both into the Army and into civilian programs. But his successor, Brezhnev, rebuilt some of the naval program. While the technology had changed, many of the motivations were the same. Brezhnev, especially after 1968, tried to rehabilitate the USSR to the rest of the world. He introduce a global strategy which aimed to turn decolonizing and decolonized nations over to the USSR and defeat the west this way. Prestige and good relations are important to that, and nothing says good relations like a port visit. Building up the navy also gave the USSR the ability to participate more directly in global crises, ala 1973 and the Yom Kippur War. And of course it would have checked Khrushchev's biggest failure: the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is also the era of admiral Gorchakov, the Soviet submarine theorist. Westerners love him because he thinks like we do about naval power and wanted the USSR to do what we would have, fight a third battle of the Atlantic. But Gorchakov is really actually a marginal figure in the USSR's military establishment. Its critical to see the revived Soviet Navy in the context of what it was meant to do. 1) it had to secure the SLBM bastions in the White Sea and around the Artic ice cap. 2) It had to protect the USSR's long coastlines from both subsurface and naval aviation threats, a big fear was a rapid USN deep penetration raid against USSR nuclear facilities or, of course, the SSBNs. Something BTW the USN practiced and was very good at. 3) Only once these two were done would the navy be permitted to move onto an offensive footing and operate along traditional lines. Which is to say never, as the new US maritime strategy of the 70s and 80s called for projecting power against the Soviet coasts in a way that would have never allowed for the security required to satisfy 1&2. More importantly, the basic defensive mission of the Navy was important in that it did not detract from the Army's offensive mission in central Europe. That is, the Navy was always the branch getting leftovers, not dictating the whole pie. It was assumed that what was at sea would be destroyed (so better have it take a shot at a carrier at least!) Once war was declared reserves, safe in the bastions, would be parceled out to accomplish the three missions as befitted the strategic and operational situation in central & norther Europe. 
And then we get into more minor things, like the fact that he calls the Russian operational theory Blitzkrieg. Its not. They grew from the same root, Cold War or even modern Deep Battle is very different than the modern form of the blitz practiced by western nations. 
Like I said, the person seems to have a strong understanding of Putin and his court, but his use of history is pretty clumsy. Worse yet this makes some of the analysis suspect because a big part of his argument in the thread that was first linked is based on this idea that Russia has a historical tendency of overdiversification of arms. Except, historically, thats not really true. So it kind of leaves him out there twisting in the wind with some of these conclusions. 
Also do we really need to worship all our sources as heroes? Just because Col M served once and said some things people like doesn't mean his word is inviolate forever. Just because someone published a book you like doesn't meant this time theyre right by default. Just because a guy on twitter says one thing you like doesn't make it a personal attack if someone else disagrees. I dont like a lot of the things I read, and if I didn't complain I'd hardly be a Grognard now would I? 🤣 Judge somebody by their words and ideas on a case by case basis. Does what they say pass the smell test? Does it fit into the other information youre reading? Is this person mainstream on this issue or are they are bucking the orthodox, if so why? Is it to be contrarian, or because theyre crazy, or dumb, or are they on to something truly different? You can even apply the same test to me! Im an asshole and surely most of the dumb things I say will wither under a critical gaze, but better to be critical than to accept the things I say whole cloth. After all I could be a crazyperson. 

I will leave it to Steve and BFCElvis to determine what is, or is not, acceptable on their own forum. 
I can only judge Col (or is it LCol?) Macgregor on what he presented, which was "different" to say the least.  His assessment that "Russia has already won" is definitely contrary to most mainstream military assessment, or media for that matter.  However, Col M argues that Ukrainians are "cut off" and "in cauldrons", near a total collapse tipping point.  Further he argues that the Ukrainians are only capable of "pin pricks" against the Russian offensive.   His noted reason for the slow Russian advance is based on strict ROEs from Putin to "avoid/limit damaging Ukraine" as much as possible, so humanitarian bascially .
So, ok, that is one point of view.  I am left wondering where Col M is getting his information to build this picture because it clearly does not match what we have been seeing - the "so what?" here is that clearly either he is very wrong or mainstream analysis/assessment is very wrong, not a lot of middle ground here.  Thoughts:
- We have a very bad habit of "lack of accountability" for what gets said on the internet.  Once the smoke clears on all this I can only hope that credibility of sources are held to account (faint hope).  We have politicians who have said things, pundits who have said things and that needs to be remembered and assessed after this is over.  If Col M is correct, or even just mostly correct, then we clearly missed some big signs or were totally taken astray, and by "we" I mean just about every mainstream venue.
-  Based on what we have seen on social media, a steady stream of open source information, Col M's thesis appears the total opposite to observation.  If this is all "fake news", then it merits as one of the largest and most thorough disinformation campaigns in human history.  If the Ukrainians, who are according to Col M on their last legs, have managed to create enough "fakes" to show over 1500 lost Russian vehicles, and Russian damage to civilian centers rivalling the invasion of Poland, this is an incredible feat of information warfare and I am talking one that dwarfs Chinese capability.  There is "fake news" and then there is mountains of "fake news".
- If Col Ms assessment of Russians adhering to strict ROEs to the point that they have delayed operational advances to the amount we have seen, then the Russian military is likely be best disciplined military force in human history.  They have literally violated almost every doctrinal principle of warfare in order to meet the demands of the political level.  For a professional military, in the middle of a major invasion, to delay offensive action - particularly against an opponent on their last legs - is one of the most breathtaking displays of military discipline I have ever heard of.  The military risks associated with doing this are extreme, not the least of which is allowing time and space for a western-backed resistance to arm and organize.  Many Russian soldiers will die because of this "restraint".  Problem here is that the Russian military does not appear well disciplined; egregious attacks on civilians, videos of looting, abandoned vehicles, radio intercepts and "lost" PWs point the exact opposite way - unless of course this is also "fake news", and we are back to "how the hell did the Ukrainians pull that off?!".
So these are just a few of Col Ms points that I walked away with and I gotta say that if he is correct well we know that this has been a war changing use of information warfare on the part of the Ukrainians, and the Russian military is nearing Spartan levels of control and discipline.  However, I have to quote Carl Sagan here "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness" and one retired Col's "say so" is not enough to go on.
Finally as to "why Ukraine matters?"  Well I am not going to get drawn into a country-specific political debate; however, the simple reasons are 1) it is inhumane; however that is a little to "hippy dippy" for some, 2) there is no more "over there" in a globalized world and 3) Russia has fundamentally challenged the global system that has made all of us in the west, rich, powerful, entitled and frankly "dumb and lazy". 
Let's explore that last one.
The global system that our grandparents/great-grandparents fought and died for and despite all its inequities -there are many- it resulted in massive and persistent stability (crazy but true) and economic, population and technological growth orders of magnitude higher and faster than any point in human history.  This did not happen because a god(s) in heaven ordained it, or weird racial theories that still float out there, it happened because we built it and defended it.  Russia's actions in Ukraine are a threat to security because they challenge that system, they got out of line and they are (or at least were) a global power.  Such actions do nothing for all that stability I mentioned, in fact they act as a global disruptor, and that is definitely a threat to us all.  If anyone is too ignorant or thinks this is some sort of political leverage issue, they frankly deserve what happens next if we let this slide. And what happens next is a new global order being written by someone else while we most likely stand around and blame each other for it.
 
 

Okay, let’s stick to his idiotic analysis of the war on the ground then.  This was from Feb. 27th:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-state-tv-tells-ukraine-to-listen-to-fox-news-guest-doug-macgregor-and-kneel-to-vladimir-putin

Let me second that, the insights on how Russian "democracy" functions were very good.

This article (via an Indian think-tank) is quite didactic
https://www.vifindia.org/article/2020/december/04/why-drones-turned-the-tide-for-azerbaijan-an-analysis
From the piece
Another point very conspicuous to note is the near absence of anti-drone weapons in the arsenal of the Armenian air defence forces. Following points are made as regards anti-drone arsenal:-
Drones throw two challenges to conventional air defences:- Their RCS is generally too small to get detected by conventional air defence radars be it early warning, fire control or missile guidance radars. Being extremely low-cost, these demand low cost kill means. There is no point of killing a few hundred dollars drone with a million dollar missile. This ratio becomes further skewed if the opponent is a swarm drone, off which the best of SAMs worth millions can take out only a few. RCS=Radar Cross Section
The thinking of countries like India, Indonesia, Vietnam is interesting to follow, as it offers the point of view of those that need to "buy smart". 
@LukeFF is the flight sim expert, but a ground attack Sukhoi with its cannon could be quite effective to take down bigger drones like the TB2.

Systems like the Protector RWS C-UAS looks like a promising way to deal with drones, especially the cheap commercial ones. The US Marines have signed a contract for it, using 30mm grenades with proximity fuses. 
https://defence-blog.com/us-marine-corps-awards-contract-to-kongsberg-for-counter-uas-weapons/
 

So I gotta start by asking: are you honestly engaging in a discussion here and want to explore ideas?  Because you are coming across as a guy whose mind is made up and no amount of rational discussion is going to matter.  I am honestly going to try here, you get exactly one shot based on your tone so far:
1 - Absolutely true, plans definitely do not survive contact, as old as warfare.  However, what is important is how fast one can re-plan and pivot.  In this the Russians have not demonstrated an ability to come up with a "new plan" and re-org to it.  They have had a pregnant pause which has allowed their opponent to organize/mobilize, arm up, dig in, dominate the narrative, and access billions in military support.  And then there is the quality of that initial plan.  Failing to establish some key operational pre-conditions (e.g. why does the internet still work for Ukraine?) is also not a very good sign. So let's see the quality of the second (or third) plan and then we might now better what is going on.
2 - You said "The Russians have taken losses, but they remain free to operate combat aircraft and helicopters over most of the country." That is not true, in fact it is very not true below about 10k feet.  The fact that Russian forces did not set the basic pre-condition of gaining air superiority is a demonstration of their problem, not Ukraine's.  Plenty of evidence of Ukrainian UAV strikes online to demonstrate that we really are in more of an airpower stalemate and that is bad for an invading force.
3 - The Russian Navy is definitely still a factor.  They have sea control and are hitting with missiles but 1) like everything else the Russians are doing, there appears little integration between naval, air and land power at this point and 2) the Russian amphibious capability is in serious question. If for the sole question, "why have they not used it yet?  that said sea control will likely not be decisive, nor has it been decisive so far.
4- Evidence of defeat (https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html), so that is coming up on 24 BTGs of tanks, look at the logistics vehicle, coming up on 485...that is bad.  But even if you refuse to believe this, then one has to ask "what losing looks like".  Over to you as you asked the question.  However, it is a layered issue.  Political defeat, military defeat, economic defeat - if we are talking military defeat, well then an inability to influence or shape negotiations in the direction of national interest is near the top for me.  And as we watch the bubble slide on the Russian side of the table, it is not looking good, but I will give you that the jury is still out. 
5- Well backwards, as on a map, is kind of a one dimensional view to be honest. The primary way Russia has "gone backwards" is in the will of the Ukrainian people.  This is not about terrain, it is about their willingness to fight.  I think if Russian had one a quick and fairly clean fight that will might have stayed relatively dormant; however, that "plan did not survive" and now the entire nation is galvanized in an existential fight...that is definitely "backwards" from a Russian perspective.  Economically, narrative and just about any other non-military metric you want to apply Russia has gone backwards severely and let's not even start on the diplomatic front as it has been a complete disaster.  But if you only want to measure ground, then I guess we have to see.
So we have discussed a lot on forces and comparisons.  Right now, conservative estimate is that UA and Russian manpower is pretty near parity in theatre.  Russia does have equipment advantage but it has failed to be able to really leverage that.  Why?  Well that is a million dollar question.  What we have seen is that Russian mass is not working, if it was that map would look a lot different.  I suspect it is either because the Russian war machine simply is not setup for this complexity and has fallen under its own weight, and the Ukrainians help them along with that.
You are correct on one point, this is coming down to Will.  The Russians can keep pouring men into this fight, even if they are dismounted and have no ammo or food but if they have the Will that is an option.  What you seem to be sidestepping is the other issue, the Ukrainian Will to fight.  They see this as existential and are acting as such, so that is a problem right there for the Russians, unless they want a decades old resistance blowing up in their face but frankly I can't even seeing them getting that far as that would mean the Russians actually have to control the entire country and not about 15% of it.  Until then arms and support will flow in from the west and Russians will bleed...but we will see who blinks first.
 Lemme just close with a very important point - this is not an internet argument that anyone can "win".  I know the reflex is there to play forum games and try to "out argue each other" but that is not what is happening here.  For the most part no one really has a full picture of that is going on so we are sharing information and trying to build the best picture we can.  So the usual internet argument games do not apply here.  If you have a different assessment based on information you have, present it and we can all get a better picture.  This is a real war and people are dying in droves, so I frankly do not care who is "right or wrong" on a given Thurs because the situation is too dynamic.  But if you honestly want to contribute then do so, but this is not a contest...it is a really violent and scary puzzle.  Finally, there are people posting here who are actually in range of all those guns so let's also try and keep that in mind.

I just read twitter of local citizen, her last post was about hour ago - the town is 50/50 between Ukrainans and Russians. 

No, that was yesterday night or today's early motning

You wanna back that up with some expertise or are we just gonna sling stuff here?
This has been one helluva "temporary".  Those maps have not moved in coming up on two weeks. Why don't you go back a few pages and read my post on what an operational pause actually is (or is not) and then come back.
As demonstrated by the dozens of abandoned vehicles, you know easy to replace stuff.
True, at least not entirely; however, the Russian's can't either.  This has led to an air parity situation.  Russians can and have been using air power but it is limited and has not been effective in interdicting western support or internal Ukrainina logistics.
I would love to see the Russians try an amphibious operation.  So far easy stuff like heliborne and basic mechanized has eluded them completely, so why not go for an amphibious landing to round out the experience.  Based on what I have seen they will die on the beach, if they can even make it that far.
They already have.  The US just announced $800 million of lethal aid, is that just window dressing?  You can google the aid coming in from Europe
 Ah, now I get it.  You are that guy, one in every bar.

Why would they not ensure air superiority?
Why would they ensure information/comms superiority?
Why does Ukraine still have a functioning C2 structure?
Why would they not ensure logistical superiority?
Why would they not cut off Western Ukraine from western support as a priority?
This and a whole lotta other operational pre-conditions....?
 

There is a video on youtube, if you search his name youll find it, from 11 days ago where he predicted now that the Russians had fixed the mistake of being "too gentle" they would win within 10 days. He also said that Ukraine should be neutralized, Zelensky isn't a hero but implied he was a murder for letting the people suffer needlessly, and said that a neutralized (with a few "border adjustments") Ukraine would be good for the US as well as Russia. The video I watched was tagged in Cyrillic, and the comments well. We wont called them unbiased.
This is a man whose cashed in his credibility so that he can get his face on TV. Fox likes him because they can wear his reputation and he sounds good. He knows the lingo. But you think about what he says is any number of clips and none of it really passes the smell test. Hes just towing a party line because its popular. He is about as credible a source at this point as Putin himself, because clearly hes one of these talking heads that will say whatever is in vouge right now to get attention.  

I believe so. I seem to recall that the theatre is a post-war Soviet project, and these often included bomb shelters.
EDIT: yes, built in 1960. Here is a photo I took in 2018: