No genuine evidence? Evidence of what exactly? This is an analysis of a situation based on observations by various experts, what we know from history as well as observations of various military experts.

The story is an analysis and reflection upon what makes armies succeed and fail. It is based on a combination of my own experiences serving in the military as well as reports from military experts in different areas. We got American generals and their experience in the middle east. We got New York times report on Russia with similar observations from military experts.

There is not really anything earth shattering mentioned here which needs proof. That Russian military is top heavy and centralized has been well known for many decades. Needing proof of that is like insisting I need proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.

The problems related to centralized command has been discussed and understood over a long time. I am not really presenting any new knowledge here which needs proving.

What I am doing is putting together well known information and making it relevant to what we are seeing in Ukraine today. This is not some kind of research paper regarding some entirely new phenomenon.

I think you confuse journalism with publishing articles in journals. In Journalism you generally don't present proof directly. Rather quote people and interview people who people view as trustworthy sources. Journalism is primarily about making complex topics more accessible to the public at large. If a journalist writes about say a new battery technology, they are not going to present proof that it works. That is not the job of a journalist.

Rather a journalist should try to present a nuanced account of different topics. A non-nuanced account say of Russia warfare in Ukraine would be to claim that they are all idiots and evil and that is why they are failing. This is an attempt at explaining more in detail why the Russian military is struggling without resorting to a shallow analysis.