They are never going to stop; they want the conflict, chaos, and calamity to last for years, decades, forever, and are perfectly willing to suck the blood out of the folk imprisoned in their own lands to keep the tempest propped up indefinitely; anarchic conditions where they neither declare war nor seek peace; a chaos of not-war they would like to see spread all the way to Moscow, much like the ‘arab spring’, the colour revolutions, the dead hand of Der Ewige Whig at work in all times and places throughout history, seeking always to create it’s natural habitat, the nihilistic negation of an ordered cosmos as such; and the only treatment is explicit recognition of this dynamic, and termination of the forever-not-war it entails with extreme prejudice; broadly in terms of strategic sinews of an organized society whose logistical capacity they parasitically depend on to instantiate their efforts, but more especially in terms of targeted strikes of the men and or gender-fluid blobs responsible for their organization.

Then again the Russians were successful with this approach in Syria and to an extent earlier in the Second Chechen War. First a deal is offered even at a tactical level before force is resorted to. This is ancient. The Russian may also take into consideration they don’t want atrocity porn widening the conflict.

Observe how much easier it was for the USM there to roll over their sparring partner than the AFR here.

Desire for something does not necessarily lead to a reality of something; a desire for something leads to behaviors, depending on the person, which behaviors may or may not actually serve towards accomplishing the reality of something.

The sentiment of ‘i wish for minimum damage’ so often translates into behavior in reality that does not lead to minimum damage, but greatly expanded and protracted damage, as the war drags on, and you end up having to escalate to what you should have been doing in the first place, anyways.

They aren’t using their artillery doctrinally undoubtedly because of choice.
That we cannot doubt. Motives we can only speculate but the choice is certain.

Why? I think – The Russian is actually playing the same game he just played in Syria with the same leaders and with ultimate success. Sparing use of firepower and artillery, constant negotiations at all levels, corridors of safety, etc. This has been a pattern through the entire conflict they apparently want to do minimum damage and take what they mean to keep intact. The USA used more airstrikes on the first day of Iraqi Freedom than the Russians used the entire month of march.

There’s nothing new to this style of war, most wars of history have constant diplomacy and offers of safe conduct, defection, golden bridges and the like to spare the cost of men on both sides [men who will later fight for you or at least not against you] and to maximize the material gains of war. Even the Mongols – totally formative in the Russian way of war and indeed governance – preferred diplomacy to slaughter.

When you say ‘if they had done that..” what that do you mean? Honest question.

Prep with artillery or use fully armored infantry carriers like the Merkava [to my knowledge only the Israelis have applied the lesson].

Honest question..what is ‘that’ ?

My fave of this whole imbroglio was the wag who wrote that by attacking on multiple axes the Russians were violating the principle of war called mass.

Make it stop. Peace now, surrender now, nuclear holocaust now. Anything, just stop the press.

The Germans maneuvered and called it maneuver. Hitler called the word «Blitzkrieg» an idiotic term, and he was right.

The rare German use of the word Blitzkrieg was in a German military magazine of 1935, which discussed the logistical difficulties Germany would face, using it literally to mean lightening war, or just a very fast, short war — a war over so fast that the enemy could not muster their superior resources and exhaust German logistics. It had nothing to do with the tank and the aircraft restoring maneuver to the battlefield, which, you know, had already been done with tanks and aircraft by the Allies in 1918.

The Russian army isn’t competent? Oh, God.

The Russian army is maneuvering at leisure and shaping the battlefield also at a leisurely pace because they don’t have you know race for the channel. No need to Blitz you know. The Russians are basically running a larger scale version of the same war they fought in Syria where they are sparing with their [vast] superiority in artillery to try as they did in Syria to minimize civilian causalities.
Force on Force they have crushing superiority and ABILITY in artillery including over the US Army [which knows this...].

There’s a reason the DOD isn’t all on fire for war unlike all our tweeter heroes. Or war on the rocks.

As for the never ending ever tiresome 1967 Sagger sigh the Israelis violated their own doctrine and common military sense by sending the tanks in charging without infantry or artillery and got spanked. Anti-Tank weapons have been around 5 mins after the tank arrived and it’s common practice.

As for the never ending back and forth between armor and missile or weapon that is eternal.

Since we’re talking about the Merkava the enduring lesson the Israelis learned long ago is light skinned light armored vehicles are deathtraps for the infantry within which is why the Merkava exists. The Merkava is also a heavily armored troop carrier.

This lesson has been relearned in Ukraine. It shall shortly be relearned by the American Army. Infantry vehicles need armor as thick as the tanks.

The enduring lesson of the Ukraine for years is that infantry fighting vehicles need the same armor as the tanks or the troops ride on top – Ride Desant – so they aren’t caught in the lightly armored coffin. Still. In Ukraine. The APC as protection is useless, it can keep up with the tanks however and the troops dismount on contact.

Russians artillery-centric. Those BTG have a battalion of artillery usually of the heavy 152 mm size organic.

One BTG = One company of tanks. One company of mech infantry. One company of air defense. One battery of anti-tank. Three batteries of artillery.