From "The Analyst":

MISSILES STRIKES: WHAT IS RUSSIA WAITING FOR?

Sometime tonight I may be proven completely wrong. If not tonight some time in the next few days or weeks you might have wasted your time reading this as much as I will have writing it.
So the question is, having stashed away getting on for 850-900 cruise and other strike missiles, what is Russia waiting for?
First of all we know the maritime arm of Russian launch systems has been compromised quite severely in the last year - around half of its launchers have been immobilised or even destroyed. Ships representing easily one third of the strike force - especially the submarine and frigates have been redacted from service due to ‘leaks’ caused by Ukrainian actions.
The strategic bomber force has lost some of its Backfires, and its only fully reliable platforms are the antique Tu-95 Bear’s. Still operational after 60+ years. They feel like old sparing partners. Several times I’ve had the honour of being in a back seat during a routine interception. I didn’t think in 1986 they’d still be going strong now. The Tornado we intercepted them in has long gone.
The problem for the Tu-95’s is that they have limited capabilities when it comes to carrying these large cruise missiles. They can’t carry them internally, so four each is as much as they can manage, two under each wing. The current estimate is that a full strike of all available launchers would manage around 80 missiles.
So the question is where are they? What are they waiting for?
I’m going to tell you know how in my old job I’d have done this.
Forget the ships at this stage. Too obvious a giveaway. Frankly too predictable in their flight path and too easy to monitor as they cross Ukraine - remember everyone has that phone app and that photo tracks and instantly reports locations which rapidly cross verify with other reports and radar tracks. It’s proven remarkably useful.
The air attacks can be routed deep into Russia and planned in such a way that they could for example, come over the shortest routes from the north in Ukraine to reach Kyiv.
You have to target the whole lot in a narrow focus path to reduce the interception footprint. Waves of drones launched well in advance can entertain the local defences as distraction. What you need is to keep the long range Patriots at the nearest of the defence lines out of the battle. They won’t fire into Russian territory because they’re terrified of a missile being recovered, and their ability reduces sharply to the point of useless at low altitudes and close ranges. The furthest Patriots will also struggle with very low altitudes.
The less time the interceptors have the better, they’ll get a few missiles off but they’re never going to be able to have enough to take them all down with little notice.
The problems arise if the missiles have to get deep into Ukraine. The further they go the less chance they have - and that’s where the long range and route planning plays to their strengths. Again, if you’re planning on such a strike every last missile you can fire has to be airborne and arriving at one target simultaneously. It’s the only way to avoid interceptions. They just can’t reload fast enough to get at a mass attack.
However this is where the ROI factor should come in. What are you getting for your return on your very heavy missiles expenses investment?
If you know for sure what you’re targeting and why - like an F-16 airbase, it’s worth it. Fire 80 get 15-20 to the target and then do it again and maybe again to be sure, in rapid succession.
If you’re doing this to knock out power grids and junction transformers you’re wasting your time and effort. It’s stupid and wasteful and just militarily pointless. And it works in Ukrainian favour publicity wise. Attacking civilians and hurting women and children relentlessly and callously gets western attention.
My biggest fear is that someone up top has realised the power grid and water supply attacks are never going to change anything. CONTINUES…