John Spencer, a retired Army officer who studies urban warfare for the Madison Policy Forum, said Ukraine’s top objective is to make the war as bloody as possible for Russia...

I said that at one point, "Make Russia bleed." The problem with that is Ukraine is going to bleed more.
...
“Not losing is winning in this case,” Spencer said. “The Ukrainian strategy is not to lose.”

No John, not losing is not winning, not in this case or any case. Winning would be kicking the invader out. Ukraine is "losing", it's just slower. They're going to lose and more Ukrainians are going to die. More Russians too, but more Ukrainians than Russians.

Russia has bombarded Kyiv mostly with artillery and other long-range weapons, as a 40-mile convoy of tanks and other combat vehicles effectively remains stalled about 15 miles north of the capital and bogged down with logistical setbacks, a senior U.S. defense official told reporters Friday on the condition of anonymity, citing ground rules established by the Pentagon.

I thought that was a shift in tactics from army infantry and artillery to aerial attack. If Russia is still beset with logistical problems, and morale, then those forces are being kept out of the war and Ukraine is losing less. Why doesn't Ukraine attack that motionless force with everything they have, not just with guerrilla hit-and-runs, with everything, rockets, bomb it with fighter jets? Western, including American, weaponry is arriving. That will greatly enable such an aggressive attack. It is surpassingly rare that a huge army is a sitting duck like that for this length of time. That's what the Confederate States did against the United States time and again, most famously at Chancellorsville, divide your outnumbered forces and surprise attack. That was military genius by Lee and was the high point of Confederate morale. It also relieved pressure off Richmond. Ukraine's military is in a similar position, on their homeland, on the defensive, trying to protect their capitol. Think the Russian forces besieging Kyiv would be distracted by an all-out assault on this marooned army. Ukraine would then have the Russian forces that left Kyiv caught in a pincer movement and would have improved chances of driving the whole of Russian forces out of Ukraine. That would be winning.

...

Ukrainian officials have indicated that after surviving the initial invasion, they intend to launch a counteroffensive against Russian forces. That is likely to favor armed ambushes rather than a major, open assault on the numerically superior Russian military, said Douglas London, a retired senior CIA officer and an analyst at the Middle East Institute.

“They’re not going to be able to mount a major counterattack, organize the troops and go, ‘Charge!’ It’s going to be an asymmetrical effort to break up Russian attacks,” London said. “The Russians have a lot of static targets because of their own logistical problems, and that’s just gold for a harassing special operations force operating in the rear. That’s just what they do.”

He knows better than I. Does he know better than Robert E. Lee, though? I don't like asymmetric attacks here. Chancellorsville-on-Dnieper has a better chance of winning the war than guerrilla harassment.

London predicted that, given Russia’s vast military advantage, Putin will press his advantage and Ukrainian forces will eventually have to adjust again.

“I don’t see him going gently into that good night,” London said of Putin. “Ukraine will eventually lose the cities, or reach a point where they can’t resupply them, and they’ll have to transition to more of an insurgency or urban underground” operation.

Stop. Since Ukraine cannot win, any resistance by definition is worse than futile, it gets even more of their people killed and maimed, their cities and infrastructure more destroyed. Paul Krugman wrote this becomingly humble intro to his column today: "Despite the astonishingly effective fight Ukraine has put up against invading forces, most military experts seem to believe that Russia’s sheer advantage in firepower will eventually prevail. Having no relevant expertise, I see no reason to question their judgment." Isn't that great? It is irresponsible, inhumane madness to counsel slow losing when Ukraine "will eventually lose." Win is defined as destroying the invader, what the Russians did to the Wehrmacht. For Ukraine to destroy the invader they have to be bold. IN MY OPINION.

Attacking Russian support lines already has proved to be a significant strategy to reduce Russia’s advantages, said Andriy Zagorodnyuk, a former defense minister of Ukraine. Russian vehicles are spread across a wide area on multiple fronts, and they’re constantly idling to keep soldiers warm in cold weather, Zagorodnyuk said, making diesel replenishment an enormous challenge.

Those trucks ain't gonna have to idle for ever!. The war began February 24. The mean daily temperature for Kyiv in the month of February is 28 degrees (F). We're now in March. The mean temperature in March is 36.5 (F). In April it jumps all the way to 50. That marooned force must be destroyed now.

The Ukrainian military has advised civilian defense volunteers to ignore armored vehicles and instead attack fuel trucks, which are unarmored and often driven by poorly trained Russian soldiers. Cutting off the fuel supply turns tanks and rocket artillery vehicles into road obstacles, and makes them susceptible to easy destruction or capture, said Zagorodnyuk, now chairman of the Center for Defense Strategies, a Ukrainian think tank.

Russia’s strength is fighting from armored vehicles, said Rob Lee [Rob Lee, oh my goodness] , a Russia military expert and a senior fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute. The opportunity for Ukraine, he said, is to deploy small teams with antitank weapons [which is what the Javelins are, which Ukraine is getting a shit-load of] to attack vehicles, then slip away. At least some of those missions are conducted by Ukrainian special operations troops, about which the Russians have relatively little intelligence since they were reconstituted in 2014, after Russia’s assault on and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

Hmm. Okay. They have to relieve Kyiv and Kharkiv though. Don't they have to get the Russians who are nearly surrounding those two cities the hell off their backs? 

Ukraine’s focus on choking off fuel supplies...With Russian vehicles holding in place, Ukrainian forces have attacked, leaving smoldering wrecks and giving Russian soldiers a grim choice: stay inside their vehicle where they’re vulnerable to a possible missile strike, or try to escape on foot and face the likelihood of being shot or captured. Videos posted on social media and authenticated by The Washington Post show some Russian vehicles were probably abandoned.

This is all small beer. Can you imagine what it would do for the morale of the Ukrainian military, the Ukrainian people, and their friends around the world if Ukraine did counter-attack? What did the Tet Offensive do to U.S. morale and credibility? It was the turning point in the Vietnam War. 

[Spencer] said he is unconvinced that Russia has enough forces to prevent Ukrainians in the capital from receiving additional arms.

Good reporting by Chief WaPo. I am unconvinced by the experts they consulted, Ukraine has one way they can win, defined as kicking the Russians out of their country or turning all of northeast Ukraine into a Russian military cemetery, and they have this one opportunity. Now is the time to think big and go bold, to win, not not lose. But...the experts know better than I.