Heirloom_Tomato

Ok, I know what is being said at many levels on "what we think about what Putin is thinking" and it plays well in political theatre, but any professional military assessment is going to be very concerned with what the other side is thinking, why they are thinking it, and how they keep thinking it.  The only exception is a war of extermination where your opponents frameworks are completely irrelevant because you are aiming to completely erase them from the books.  Neither side in this war is at that level, in fact that level is very rare - think Mongols.
This is also much bigger than "Putin".  For all we know he is already in favour of WMDs to "solve this" and it is the domestic response, linked to military response that is keeping him in check - despite the noise, he is not a god-king - and sustained attacks on Russian homeland, especially when a missile goes off course and hits a school, is strategically risky.  I say "risky" because obviously there are benefits in sending a message but potential costs as well...all war is negotiation as well.
"Maximal support for Ukraine" - no, because that would include us attacking Russia directly up to and including nuclear weapons.  I am all for Ukraine an this one but we are not "all in" on this one.  One needs only go online and read the predictions of a full nuclear exchange and you can see why.  We may even be "all in" as a proxy war, for the most part (e.g.  I don't think we will be sending WMDs to Ukraine) but direct confrontation with between two nuclear states has only occurred a few times since we opened that box and every time it was like a barfight when someone pulls out a gun...a "whoa" moment.
Finally, this is not about "Putin desperate", he is already there.  This is about "Russians desperate" and any realistic assessment of this thing needs to separate those two concepts.  Go check the history books on what happens when the Russian's get desperate, nothing good.  The strategy being employed here is "poison-perogy-to-induce-vomiting", not to destroy Russia in fire and righteousness.  

You're missing my point which has been nicely demonstrated already by the citizens of Belgorod turning fuel stations into carparks following the strike desperate to get fuel - this wouldn't have happened had the attack hit a military fuel depot.  It has also been demonstrated in part by the response of the Russian authorities as they have publicly admitted it has taken place.  The net result is that there is a section of the population that now knows that the 'mighty' Russian armed forces cannot protect them, that this war is by no means over and for those living in Belgorod it has triggered panic buying.  It may trigger some of them to evacuate which means that the message propagates more widely.  A small additional bonus effect maybe, but this will also cause some traffic disruption thus hampering military movement down the highways in the area.
Now let's' say that those helicopters zapped some Russian logistical node in a remote area/"Nowheregrad".  The attack can be denied by the Russians and this has less effect in the information operations domain and its a rinse a repeat of other military logistical vehicles getting whacked which we have seen ad nauseum now.  Such attacks of course have an effect but it is more physical than cognitive, and it is very localized say to XX Motor Rifle Brigade's ability to manoeuvre.  
By attacking something in a city we have had a reaction and the Russian military now needs to consider ringing its border cities with SAM systems and/or committing aircraft to CAP coverage of the borders - all of which divert resources from the front.  Or it ignores the problem and risks a repeat attack and more civilian dismay.
There's been a lot of talk here about what 'new warfare' looks like and I think this is an example of it.  Small forces exploiting gaps in a dispersed battlespace attacking carefully selected and weakly defended centres of gravity/targets to achieve operational effects.

Most likely the prisoner abuse is real (who knows what situation these guys are returning from, and it seems to be too chaotic to be some planned out torture, rather than a spontaneous outburst), but I see a real trend spreading to highlight and “both sides” this rather minor and isolated possible war crime (way down the totem pole from raping, torturing and executing civilians).  Bit sickening when this is on CNN but not the 10 or so eyewitness accounts of abuse / killing of civilians I have heard today alone. Me thinks some in the West are seeking relief for their guilt and excuses to turn away and stop looking.  What better excuse to click on that Will Smith link instead.
I don’t see why it really matters since Ukraine already stated their clear policy and indicated reports of abuse would be investigated.  There is really nothing more you can do other than hope that cooler heads prevail in these situations.

Ref the Captain as BTT CO, above...I keep following the mental thread of just how bad could things be for the Russians in certain units. 
If you think further, there's yet another layer of "Well, She's All Facked Up Now" to this.
There's multiple Capts in a battalion, and they absolutely are not all equal in ability or experience, with a formal seniority and an internal, ability-based seniority. So once the Btt CO/XO are pancaked you step up the most experienced and able guy, right?
But now that the repl. Captain is another a crater in the ground, so who's next?
Well if your C&C is getting whacked again and again I bet the rest of the Btt officer core is also getting ground down. So the pool of available, non-dead/bleedy "talent" is now a shrinking puddle.
Comrad Capt. WhatsHisBloodyNamovich of the Motor Pool? The arschlock who stole all the handwarmers during the January deployments? That guy?

Let's take an "Operational Pause" here, a few KM back...Like, ALLLL the way back...

There it is...moving the goal post.  I have avoided getting into "well here is how the Russian's could have succeeded" discussions too deeply as there is still a real war and it is kinda disrespectful to people still fighting and dying but maybe we are far enough along to offer a few ideas.
If Russia had made the Donbas and the infamous "land bridge" to the Crimea to sole operational objectives of this war, they may have actually achieved, or at least had a better chance at their strategic and political ones.  If they had focused their main efforts to 2 main axis of advance with a limit of exploitation pretty close to what we are seeing on the maps now in the SE, along with "shock and awe" strikes across Ukraine they could theoretically have:
- Achieved their objectives much faster by concentrating their combat power and logistical capability.  This would have prevented or at least mitigated the UA build up and influx of western support.
- They could have simply dug in, took Mariupol and the land bridge and declare "mission accomplished".  Russia would have demonstrated its "immense power" to the world.  A shortened war (and I am not talking 72 hours but maybe a couple weeks) would have lessened western resolve and shaped the negotiation table.
- A short hard modest successful demonstration would have left a lot of "doubt" on the table for the West and Ukraine.  This would have made a threat of "further special actions" much more effective on the calculus on the West.  It also would have kept a lot more strategic options open as compared to where they find themselves now.
- It may have fractured the west more than fused it.  If Russia could demonstrate restraint and humanity in a "internal border dispute" it immediately call into question the economic sacrifices the rest of Europe will be making in what has become an economic war with Russia.  Further, it would play on the ever widening political divides in just about every western democracy.  It would have kept China very happy, without risking becoming one of their provinces. 
- If Putin really was a "genius", his play would be to immediately call for UN Peacekeepers in a ZOS once he had gained what he needed to.  Not western troops but Malaysians or Brazilians, a crew he could keep in his pocket.  We would have crumbled into a hot burning mess if Russia, backed by China and India, called on the global collective diplomacy and security body to intervene...it would have broken us.  If we say "no freakin way", then who are the warmongers who are pushing their agenda and supporting a massive military industrial complex?  If we say yes, we are in for years of negotiation and diplomacy, likely false but we built the system now we have to use it, all the while those sanctions start to go stale and erode.  
But here we are on the possible threshold of some really scary stuff, led by an insulated and deluded madman surrounded by yes-men, who decided that he could pull off a modern land invasion on the scale of the Fall of France with a couple hundred thousand poorly supported troops and complete failure to establish pre-conditions or align his strategies. 

This is the most awesome thing in the world. Prove me wrong.

I do computer simulations for a living, physics-based simulations, no human decisions involved.  I'd say the issue is not AI or quantum calcs or anything that fancy.  The issue is the data entered into the simulations.  If the russians and ukrainians were modeled accurately and the simulation 'physics' could handle the small scale unit effects, then it could be modeled.  The reality is that Russia was entered as steel when it's actually cheap plastic, while the ukrainians were entered as plastic instead of steel.

Somebody needs to tell him, cough @Battlefront.com cough, that he has the wrong computer analysis. 
Take any CM title, seriously any CM title, and play an Attack Quick Battle. Choose mechanized/armoured/motorized attackers. Be generous and say 20% are Crack, 30% Veteran, 30% Regular and 20% Green. Set morale to High, Normal, Low and Poor respectively. Leadership levels from +1 to -2. Give them one off map battery for every Company.
For the defenders, make sure they have an abundance of AT assets. I think the force skill level can be the same, however the leadership should all be +1 or better and morale a mix of Extreme and High. One off map battery for every two Companies.
Choose a large rural map, fields and forests with a small town or two. A river or a couple of streams would be ideal. Set the ground conditions to muddy, cool or cold and light rain.
Play the battle as the attacker, on iron mode, ideally with enemy icons off.
Let us all know how that turns out.

Somebody needs to tell him, cough @Battlefront.com cough, that he has the wrong computer analysis. 
Take any CM title, seriously any CM title, and play an Attack Quick Battle. Choose mechanized/armoured/motorized attackers. Be generous and say 20% are Crack, 30% Veteran, 30% Regular and 20% Green. Set morale to High, Normal, Low and Poor respectively. Leadership levels from +1 to -2. Give them one off map battery for every Company.
For the defenders, make sure they have an abundance of AT assets. I think the force skill level can be the same, however the leadership should all be +1 or better and morale a mix of Extreme and High. One off map battery for every two Companies.
Choose a large rural map, fields and forests with a small town or two. A river or a couple of streams would be ideal. Set the ground conditions to muddy, cool or cold and light rain.
Play the battle as the attacker, on iron mode, ideally with enemy icons off.
Let us all know how that turns out.

Somebody needs to tell him, cough @Battlefront.com cough, that he has the wrong computer analysis. 
Take any CM title, seriously any CM title, and play an Attack Quick Battle. Choose mechanized/armoured/motorized attackers. Be generous and say 20% are Crack, 30% Veteran, 30% Regular and 20% Green. Set morale to High, Normal, Low and Poor respectively. Leadership levels from +1 to -2. Give them one off map battery for every Company.
For the defenders, make sure they have an abundance of AT assets. I think the force skill level can be the same, however the leadership should all be +1 or better and morale a mix of Extreme and High. One off map battery for every two Companies.
Choose a large rural map, fields and forests with a small town or two. A river or a couple of streams would be ideal. Set the ground conditions to muddy, cool or cold and light rain.
Play the battle as the attacker, on iron mode, ideally with enemy icons off.
Let us all know how that turns out.

Somebody needs to tell him, cough @Battlefront.com cough, that he has the wrong computer analysis. 
Take any CM title, seriously any CM title, and play an Attack Quick Battle. Choose mechanized/armoured/motorized attackers. Be generous and say 20% are Crack, 30% Veteran, 30% Regular and 20% Green. Set morale to High, Normal, Low and Poor respectively. Leadership levels from +1 to -2. Give them one off map battery for every Company.
For the defenders, make sure they have an abundance of AT assets. I think the force skill level can be the same, however the leadership should all be +1 or better and morale a mix of Extreme and High. One off map battery for every two Companies.
Choose a large rural map, fields and forests with a small town or two. A river or a couple of streams would be ideal. Set the ground conditions to muddy, cool or cold and light rain.
Play the battle as the attacker, on iron mode, ideally with enemy icons off.
Let us all know how that turns out.

Somebody needs to tell him, cough @Battlefront.com cough, that he has the wrong computer analysis. 
Take any CM title, seriously any CM title, and play an Attack Quick Battle. Choose mechanized/armoured/motorized attackers. Be generous and say 20% are Crack, 30% Veteran, 30% Regular and 20% Green. Set morale to High, Normal, Low and Poor respectively. Leadership levels from +1 to -2. Give them one off map battery for every Company.
For the defenders, make sure they have an abundance of AT assets. I think the force skill level can be the same, however the leadership should all be +1 or better and morale a mix of Extreme and High. One off map battery for every two Companies.
Choose a large rural map, fields and forests with a small town or two. A river or a couple of streams would be ideal. Set the ground conditions to muddy, cool or cold and light rain.
Play the battle as the attacker, on iron mode, ideally with enemy icons off.
Let us all know how that turns out.

Have to disagree with you there Steve, they don't have our secret weapon:
Rooaaawwr!!  Get those engines running ladies....  

BFC RAND Corp? 
Institute for the Study of Wargaming?
Col. McCapt? 

This is wrong photo. If this not our PsyOps operation, Russian tank driver brought to us T-72A. Knowingly, Russians use robbed cell phoes, so our ELINT units of SBU or Intelligence Directorate are sending on this cell.numbers SMS with a terms of surrender. As if one Russian tank driver communicated with Ukraianian side and told he is ready to surrender with own tank. As if other two crewmens alredy deserted, their unit have lack of food, chaotic command&control etc. Their commander threat to all other to shot out if anybody else will deserted.
Our SOF gave to him a place of rendezvous and when the tank appeared, the drone was took off to make shure this is not ambush. The tanker was captured and brought to safe place. Russian trooper reportedly will be interned to the end of war in comfort room with bath and TV. After war will over, he will receive 10 000$ of award for tank and he can apply for Ukraianian citizenship. 
Here the photo of catpturing. 
 

If only there was a way within Russia's control that relations could be improved 🙄

So I think we are at the point that we can call it, I think the Russian strategic Offensive Phase of this war is pretty much at an end.  We went from Quick War, to Siege/Grinding War, to what is looking more like Balkan War as Russian forces appear to be 1) pulling back and consolidating and, 2) trying to assert control in the areas they do "control".  This does not mean we won't see offensive action at the tactical scale, in fact I suspect the Russians will burn assets and troops trying to take Mariupole and any other hub they can; however, the big red sweeps are likely over, at least for now.
So what happens next?  Or maybe what could happen next? 
- Strategic Pause.  The Russians almost look like they are trying to conduct a strategic pause, which is in effect and attempt to re-mobilize within political constraints/restraints.  Stories of troops being pulled in from the east and weird "contracts" are a possible sign that Russia is trying for a major re-org/re-boot before they would likely double down on Plan A.  Given how badly they have been chewed up this theory is not too far out there.  If Russia goes this way, it means they think they can sustain the war for months into the summer and make another run at Putin's Dream.  They will need to re-stock a lot of equipment and ammunition so there should be signals in strategic Russian production and pulling out of war stocks.  On the pers side we might see some sort of rumors of a Russian version of "stop-loss" as they start playing fast and loose with military contracts.  I don't think Putin has the backing to go full national mobilization (or he would have likely already done it), so this will be "as much as we can and still be able to call this a 'special operation' nonsense".
- Grab, Hold, Bargain.  More likely, but not exclusive of the Strategic Pause theory is that Russians are going to try to dig in and hold onto as much leverage as they can in order to shore up their position at the negotiating table.  This will likely see lots of medieval stuff to terrorize the UKR government into concessions.  We saw exactly the same ploys in the Bosnian War with Sarajevo (and Mariupole is starting to look worse than that).  The question will be how long this takes but it cedes the pressure back onto the UKR government in a typical extortionist/domestic abusers argument of "it is your own fault that I have to beat you". 
- Last Gasp.  Another option, and one I know favored by Steve, is that this is the beginning of the end for the Russian military in Ukraine.  What we are seeing is a lot of "scrambling for success" a the lower levels so that they can say "we did our part" while the higher levels are no doubt thinking about "alternative options".  The test as whether this is collapse or simply digging in will be how well the Russians can hold up to inevitable UA counter attacks.
So Whats?
    First off the Russian military has an enormous defensive problem, entirely of their own making.  By my rough measurements, by attacking along 4-5 separate operational axis of advance in an attempt to take the whole eastern part of the country, they now have a frontage of roughly 1400km+ to try and "defend".  That is roughly three times as long as the entire Western Front in WW1.  To make any areas they control even close to airtight, they are going to need hundreds of thousands of troops to do it.  Troops I am not sure they have, nor can equip, let alone conduct C2 for at this point.  If Russia is serious about Grab, Hold Bargain, they may have to simply wholesale abandon some axis and gains likely in the East in order to be able to create credible defensives and pressures.  We do know the UA has troops all along those 1300km frontage, they are either regular, hybrid, or resistance/territorial defence.  They know the ground intimately and are continuing to see a steady flow of weapons in from the west.  How the UA counter-offensive goes will be key to determining the actual situation of Russian forces.
    Second, without making the areas they defend "airtight" they will continue to be plagued by attacks along their LOCs.  The Russians might try to make ironclad support corridors but given the ranges of the UKR weapons systems this is a huge undertaking of interlinked strong points just to get the supplies to some sort of front.  This will make the logistics problem worse.  That, and defence still puts a lot of strain on logistical systems, but in different ways.  Ammunition, not gas becomes the central issue.  Field defence stores and landmines take a lot of truck space, so we should be seeing more of that, along with of course artillery and other ammunition.  That and now Russia needs a lot more manpower, which all need a lot more pers-based supplies such as food, water, clothing, sanitation (unless you want General Disease getting into the game) and medical.
    Third, C4ISR in the defensive is a bit of a nightmare.  Whereas in the offence you can prioritize your main efforts, in the defence you have to be able to see and coordinate fires everywhere at the same time.  Doing that along a 1300km frontage is...well, simply insane but hey here we are.  The UA, did a pretty good job of it but it was their ground, they had the HUMINT going their way, and very likely buckets of ISR feeds from the west.  The Russian architecture has not demonstrated they are set up for this.  Further, this is contested airspace so one cannot simply dig in and sit, they are going to have to keep high value assets moving, like artillery, all the time or it will get tagged and hit quickly.  This will mean that Russians will need to employ a dynamic manoeuvre defence, much like the UA did, and I am not seeing that within the Russian repertoire.
    The UA counter-offensive will be key.  I suspect they will stick with the game that has carried them this far and simply cut up Russian rear areas to isolate and then chop up slices piecemeal to keep making gains.  Their hybrid "sharp mass" has been extremely effective in the defence, we will see how it does in the offense but I give them good odds to be honest.  
   If the Russians can do a full Strategic re-set, a big ask, then we could see a Round 2 Offensive Phase of this thing but the odds of it success get worse everyday as the UA "beginners" are becoming veterans very widely.  Further they are likely refining C4ISR building on their successes and more and more lethal aid is pouring in from the west.  If the Russians cannot get back up and moving before that $800M from the US shows up, well they too deserve what happens next.   
   To be honest, if someone tasked me with shooting for a Russian Strategic re-set, I would tell them it is going to take years because whatever they came with in this "come as you are war" was a failure and we are talking about deep military reforms and training in order to re-build a force that could actually pull off what the aspiration of this thing.  In fact you might need to invent a military that does not exist on this planet.  In '03 the US had to advance roughly 500kms to Bagdad and they owned the sky and the sea, had set operational pre-conditions, massive C4ISR overmatch, and have some of the best military logistical systems on the planet.  It took the US 3 weeks to take Bagdad and they were fighting a eroded and beaten Iraqi military that had zero outside support.  The US did not try a 4-5 axis grab along a 1300km frontage because the military planners knew it was impossible with what they had, which was 2-3 times what the Russians brought to this fight (466K, over 500k with allies).  And, politics completely aside, Iraq '03 was not well thought of and still is not well thought of in professional military circles as it failed to secure the gains and led to a multi-year insurgency.  
   So as we proceed on this journey, I am wracking my brain to make a list of the "Dumbest Wars in History" but this one has to be on it and moving upwards rapidly.
 
 

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

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

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.
 
 

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 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:

Great news! The bomb shelter under Drama Theater in Mariupol survived the hit of 500 kg bomb. Now the rubbles removing have started to reach the entrance of shelter. There is still unknow about possible casualties among people which were inside the buiding and out of shelter. 

This is nuts:
 

Heard this multiple times here and elsewhere so I think it is time for us to have a Pause talk.  We pretty much know the Russians have pretty much halted operational level offensives and are stalled, that is all over the place and even mainstream media has picked it up.  So the theories on what is happening to the Russian forces now are roughly assembling around 3 possibilities:
- Stopped, cannot start so digging in for a long haul, which will see broad operational defensive operations with limited tactical offensive actions designed to terrorize the population.
- Stopped, will never re-start and are heading towards total collapse.
- Stopped, conducting an operational pause to consolidate/re-org before re-starting the massive offensive to surround major cities and begin the Russian Grind strategy. 
I am going to leave off the first two and focus on that third one.  A military war machine is a really big system built in layers, we do this for both C2/span of control and sustainment reasons.  Normally a modern military will lay itself out in echelons of some shape or size in depth, the Soviets had a really organized system for this, the Wests was a bit more fluid but we all are set up to fight in what are essentially structures waves since the Roman legions (somebody google the opening of the HBO Rome series and you can see it in action).
For arguments sake let's go with the rule of three and say the Russians are setup in three tactical layers (the West kind of does it as well with "2 up, 1 back and the last one as "Reserve", bit more of a pyramid scheme).  The first tactical layer will be given main objectives and then some stretch ones, unless they are using mission-command then it gets a bit more opportunistic, but the concept is the same; whistle blows first wave into the breach. 
That echelon/wave is expected to be able to fight for a certain period of time based on a lot of factors like attrition, distance, logistical consumption; however, the old rule is that in human based systems you can get about 72-96 hours of action (i.e. little to no sleep) before people start to break down ("beware the 5th day" by Moltke (I think)).  So that first wave can theoretically do up to 4 days of intense action before it needs to be relieved by the second wave.  This can change based on conditions but it is important to understand that it can get shorter but not longer because we are still fighting with human beings as the basis of the system.  So no matter how tough the guys might think they are, or how many chin ups they can do, after 4 days without sleep their brains start to shut down (trust me, been there and done it).
Then the second wave is supposed to conduct some sort of passage of lines and process continues for another 72-96, and then the third wave (if you have one).  While the second and third are doing their thing the first wave is supposed to be going through a tactical consolidation which include resupply/reinforcements/replacements and reorganization.  This is also when things like vehicle and weapons systems maintenance happens because vehicles will break down like people.
Now that whole system, which for arguments sake we can call the "operational system" is designed to be able to keep this up for weeks to months.  However after a certain amount of time all the losses and wear & tear start to add up and you need...wait for it...an operational pause.  [Aside: eventually, all these operational pauses add up and you see a strategic pause but that can take much longer].  This pause is basically an entire system overhaul to do all sorts of things that look like refitting a ship.  Replacements, rotations and re-organization of tactical units.  Planning and boring stuff like orders.  A lot of logistical and ISR scene setting for the next phase, and lastly...don't let your opponent know you are doing an operational pause until it is over.  So you will still see tactical action such as feints, tactical offensives but with short small gains - more jabs than actual punches - are often employed to try and make it hard for an opponent to figure out that you are in fact pausing...why?  We will come back to that.
Ok, so how does that apply to the current situation.  Let's accept that this is an operational pause for a moment and the big nasty Russian Bear is just cleaning the blood out of its fur before going back to ravaging Ukrainian bunnies.  Well first off it was not a planned pause, it happened too quickly.  Based on the big maps and overall tempo, it appears like the Russians were really advancing hard for the first 3-4 days.  We did see a likely echelon flip on the next 3-4 days as they pushed depth forward but by about day 10 of this thing everyone was starting to notice that the big red blotches on the map had stopped moving.  So let's give the Russian the benefit of the doubt and say they actually managed to use all three echelons effectively, well what likely did not happen was that 1st wave reloaded while waves 2 and 3 continued.  Remember formations are designed to be able to do this for weeks and out to months if the situation allows. So having the whole operational system come to a stop in 10 days is a very good indication that this was not in the plan.
10 days into this war was 5 March, a week and half ago.  Even the most uninformed journalist (and here I cast a baleful eye at our own CBC because it is harder to find a more uninformed bunch when it comes to warfare) is getting the drift that the Russians are not moving.  Now remember when I said "don't let your opponent know you are pausing"?  The reason for this is that you do not what them to try and grab the operational initiative, it is bad if they do because you are now on the defensive pretty much by definition.  Now if you plan for this, you can do all sorts of clever things like pull you opponent into over reaching etc, not sure I see a masterful design on the Russian side here.  But the UA has shown more offensive actions and c-attacks.  We have all been talking about a big UA operational strike, not sure if it will happen but the Russians are leaving the door open to one because of this pregnant operational pause. 
So to summarize, the Russian operational pause: 1) came much earlier than it should have, why?, 2) has lasted the length of an Old Testament reading in modern warfare timelines, and 3) is handing initiative over to their opponent.
So what?  Well if this is a Russian operational pause (at this rate, and with rumors of those other 40 BTGs it could be strategic) it is not a good one.  The conditions that led to that are very likely really poor pre-planning, ample evidence of that, and systemic failures that happened very quickly.  This speaks to a brittle operational system that they are having to almost re-tool from the ground up.  I have serious doubts that the Russians, who have lost some of their best troops, can come out of this as a new "super-force" able to mass joint effects and cut through the UA in days.  The types of planning and quality organization/preparations, from logistics to C4ISR, that a military force needs to do in order to pull off what the Russians are attempting takes years to prepare and build.
So if this is an operational pause, it is probably a master class in "how not to do this" and I doubt it will solve much for the Russian forces who are now coming up on two weeks of time they have given their opponent to prepare, supply and continue to hit them as they are pausing.

'Wali' is not a PMC nor a mercenary.  He left his computer programming job, a wife and a son about to turn one to go over to help the Ukrainian people.  He is a person with a conscience and the need to do something.  I get that because I wanted to volunteer myself but my age and my health are against that.  
Please don't infer that he and people like him are 'serial killers'