...
You continue to spread lies and misinformation here, and I have no idea why. The Russian invasion has already failed in its primary objectives, and is being reorganized to accomplish secondary objectives, the so-called "phase 2". However it will also fail, and all that will remain in the end are the thousands of lives that were lost in vain.
In modern armed conflict, the one who controls the airspace usually wins. Russia took control of the air in Ukraine in the first hours of the start of the operation, it was then that everything was strategically over for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. That is why, for the entire first week since the start of the operation, Zelensky asked and even demanded that NATO close the airspace over Ukraine - because this is a key moment. Turkey has not joined the economic sanctions against Russia, but as a supplier of Bayraktars, it has done more for Ukraine than the US and Europe combined.
The only real advantage of Ukraine now is a noticeable quantitative superiority in manpower. If the third wave of mobilization is successful, Ukraine can, in 2-3 weeks, bring the strength of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to 600 thousand soldiers and gain an advantage of 2-2.5 times over the number of Russian troops in Ukraine, together with the people's militia of Donbass. This is a noticeable advantage, and for defensive battles in urban areas - even overwhelming. And the difficult course of the cleansing of Mariupol shows this well. I am writing this paragraph so that you understand that I am not driven by naked jingoistic patriotism, but by a fairly sober understanding of the situation. ...
Putin's army has not reached Air Supremacy. Not in the first weeks, not now, the main reason is that Ukraine still holds a decent anti-air capability,
recently increased by the way. Putin cannot use the aviation at will, that is certain simply looking at the evolution of the war.
They should have done so to be honest, and they are, at least in theory, far superior in air warfare, but I assume they do not want to risk those planes as they may be difficult or even impossible to replace and the are needed for "defence in case the NATO attacks". It is far better to use rockets that are about to expire and a few hypersonic (incredibly expensive) just for show and if a building full of people or two are hit in the process... well... that is a problem for the denying department.
On top of that seems like your "modern warfare" manual is outdated. There are quite a few wars in which air supremacy was undisputed but in which countries resisting with asymmetric tactics, difficult terrain, urban warfare or simply a population that does not accept the invaders ended up in long wars that were not "won" nor even marginally by the aggressors. I would not class Vietnam as "modern" but it would be a clear example, with no doubt about who had the air advantage.
So why do Russians execute Ukrainian civilians now?
Remember one simple thing, and if you have a bad memory, then write it down and read it every day before breakfast instead of morning prayer -
a Russian soldier will never shoot at civilians, he will rather shoot at his commander who gave him such an order. Therefore, absolutely no one in Russia believes in cheap Ukrainian propaganda fakes, it is simply impossible because of the peculiarities of our mentality....
It must be then be only army in the world that does not have (or creates) psychopaths. So all the buildings, nearly all Mariupol and all the area around Kyiv was assumed to be fully empty of civilians when shelled? Interesting that you consider your view "sober understanding of the situation" and say this a few minutes later.