Russia - threadbanned users in OP

As others have said, it's effectively a stalemate at the moment.There's increasing indication that Ukraine is preparing a major push into Russian territory, recent HIMARS/M270 strikes against Russian ammunition and supply dumps, command centres, the bridges across the Dnieper in Kherson as well as today's strike against Nova Fedorivka air base in Crimea seem a lot like "battlefield preparation" strikes to me, but so far, the actual offensive has not kicked off.

It seems like Kherson Oblast might be the focus of any future Ukrainian push. Ukraine has been making small gains there since the spring, and the region is the only Russian bridgehead west of the Dnipro meaning that even before the strikes against the Antonivka bridge and others, Russian troops in Kherson were at the far end of a rather tenuous supply line. Even by "just" pushing the Russians back to the eastern bank of the Dnipro would bring many supply roads from Crimea north towards the Donbas into range of Ukrainian artillery. More crucially though, it would present a massive threat to the North Crimean Canal, a major source of fresh water for Crimea that starts at the Nova Kahovka dam on the Dnipro. Cutting off the canal again would cause significant water shortages on the peninsula. So all in all, a push in Kherson offers a lot of strategic advantages, especially since Russia"s focus appears to remain concentrated on the Donbas, leaving Kherson as a comparatively softer target.

I'd also recommend keeping an eye on the YouTube channel of the Bundesheer, the Austrian Armed Forces. Most of their videos are in German, but every month or so, they publish an English language recap of the developments in Ukraine. These presentations are made by Colonel Markus Reisner, Head of R&D at the Theresian Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt, Austria's counterpart to the likes of Sandhurst or West Point and are generally really good to catch up on developments:

Therein is the source of Russia's military ineptness. "Modern Doctrine" as you wrote would indeed have been a lot more careful about the storage of explosives and the deployment of assists. A modern military is ideally used like a scalpel, carefully cutting in and getting the job done with as little unnecessary damage as possible. But the Russians don't appear to know how to do that anymore. Their scalpel is a massive bloody hammer that they swing around like a mid thing. It's no surprise that the hammer would eventually hit them in their own damn head.

A modern disciplined military would have been smarter about the storage of weapons. A modern disciplined military would also have been taking the time to actually train their recruits to be more than meat for the grinder, and a modern disciplined military would not have nuked their chances of winning over the local population by raping & murdering them.

If this attack has crippled their southern air forces, all the better. I don't fancy Russia's current abilities of replacing Soviet-era military aircraft.

You don't let your enemy see your cards, it's that simple. If you disclose that the attack was carried out by HIMARS or M270 launched ATACMS, Neptun missiles or Ukraine's domestically developed Grim-2 short range ballistic missile, you'll just expose those weapons systems to even more potential reprisal attacks. If you disclose that it was an air strike, it will likely result in increased Russian combat air patrols and a beefing up of air defenses, whilst stating that the attack was a special forces raid will massively increase the risk for the team that conducted the raid and that might very well still be hiding in Crimea, waiting to strike the next target.

By saying nothing, the Russian Forces don't know what they need to defend against. They only know that even far behind the front lines, in areas that Russian Forces and civilians perceive as safe, Ukraine is able to strike seemingly at will. They now need to spread their forces thin trying to cover their own rear, reducing the number of troops that can be sent to the front line. Then there's the psychological aspect. Knowing that your base might just spontaneously explode without warning can't be too good for morale.

The Russian holidaymakers likely reached Crimea via the Kerch Bridge, and will likely return that way.

This Road/Rail bridge was built after Russia annexed Crimea and it links the Ukrainian peninsula with a bit of the Russian mainland just to the east of it. It is likely the safest option for Russian civilians to reach Crimea (for now). The other "Land Bridge" Russia has managed to carve out of Southern Ukraine doesn't have many direct routes, and is a warzone, making it pretty dangerous to even their own army. That leaves the Kerch Bridge, which long-term is probably going to be a target for attack.

I must question the intelligence of a Russian holidaymaker in going to beaches near military installations, which are not that far away from an active warzone featuring an enemy who claim the very beach you are relaxing on. Boggles the mind. I get that Russian sun-holiday options in Europe are likely curtailed a lot lately, but surely getting a tan isn't this important!