So by defending a city that is being invaded you are hiding behind human shields? Are they supposed to meet face-to-face somewhere on a field just like in the 17th century? And by encircling Kyiv (which they never fully managed) they prevented partisan attacks half across the country? Yes, Russians get a big advantage by not fighting in cities, but why bother encircling the capital that is almost a thousand kilometres from the separatist areas that were the excuse for invasion in the beginning? My point is that it was a full scale from the beginning (if we are still talking about that guy's comment) and 'muh poor ruskies in Donbas' was just an excuse to take control of a developed industrial centers Putin could never build himself
So by defending a city that is being invaded you are hiding behind human shields?
If you quarter or station troops in a building that also has civilians, for anything but the evacuation of those civilians, yes.
My point is that it was a full scale from the beginning
Not really. They moved to secure Chernobyl because you'd absolutely have to push beyond the exclusionary zone because you don't want that on the battle map. They effectively dominated the skies in the first week and then didn't push the air cover advantage for the subsequent weeks. They could have pushed the shock and awe factor into major cities but slowly have encircled them and allowed for humanitarian corridors while allowing defecting Ukrainian troops to flee the country through those corridors. If they wanted it to be over, it would be over. If they didn't mind stacking civilian bodies they'd be stacked.
(post is archived)