> I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision, and the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing. Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences.

That doesn't explain this, though:

> Vastly outmatched by Russia's military, in terms of raw numbers and firepower, Ukraine's own air force is still flying and its air defenses are still deemed to be viable - a fact that is baffling military experts.

> After the opening salvos of the war on Feb. 24, analysts expected the Russian military to try to immediately destroy Ukraine's air force and air defenses.

> That would have been "the logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938," wrote the RUSI think-tank in London, in an article called "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force."

> Instead, Ukrainian air force fighter jets are still carrying out low-level, defensive counter-air and ground-attack sorties. Russia is still flying through contested airspace.

...

> Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule?

It seems like it. I've seen videos of captured Russians where they claimed they were lied to and told the Ukrainians would welcome them. IIRC, their invasion of Crimea wasn't met with much resistance, and maybe they assumed it would be the same this time.

Also, if they'd been faster they might have had more success. I've seen reports that the Russian military has been acting in risk-averse ways that gave the Ukrainians time to organize more effective resistance.