The special military operation started with an assault on Kiev, the plan being to overthrow the governmental control quickly, control Kiev. — Punshhh

The plan went wrong and what we have now is the result of repeated failures by Russia to take control of Ukriane. — Punshhh

This is just a narrative, and it isn't actually supported by the facts as we know them, nor by military logic. Those facts have been repeated ad nauseam in this thread.

Not even the most lopsided interpretation of those facts and numbers will produce anything that comes close to supporting your view.

So why was a military Column marching on Kiev at the beginning of the invasion?

And if the plan was to bed down in bunkers in the Dombass, why did a column march on Kiev?

The Russian casualties are large, even if the numbers are disputed.

So why was a military Column marching on Kiev at the beginning of the invasion?

And if the plan was to bed down in bunkers in the Dombass, why did a column march on Kiev? — Punshhh

To put pressure on the Kiev government, and to create multiple threats that create ambiguity over the precise objectives of the operation.

The troop deployments, force posture, behavior and casualty figures around Kiev can in no way be interpreted to imply that a capture of Kiev was a principal goal of the operation.

The Russian troop count was much too low in relation to the defenders, their force posture and behavior completely stand-offish, and casaulty figures that are a fraction of those we see during other phases of the war, during which actual intense fighting took place. In short, there isn't an iota of evidence that implies an all-out offensive to overrun the capital. None. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

I recommend you use the search function to look up previous conversations that were had on this topic. It goes in depth, with sources and all.

This is a good example of media storytelling. It makes sense, it has kernels of truth to it, and it’s comforting — especially if one presupposes Putin is an evil (and foolish) man. But of course it isn’t accurate.

I would have probably believed all that myself 30 years ago, but listening to dissident voices on the subject has been enlightening. I suggest doing so carefully, if you haven’t already. It doesn’t have to be Sachs or Mearsheimer — although they’re very helpful. Compare the facts that they point out to what you’re hearing from other sources. It’ll be interesting. Especially about military and economic numbers.

has already gone over some of this— and it’s true that this has been gone over so many times it’s tiresome to retread.