they could have used artillery to level Kiev to the ground.
Russia never had a lot of artillery in range of Kiev, let alone the logistics capacity to bring up enough ammo to do much damage to Kiev. They only had a small number spread out in range of the outskirts, and they were constantly forced to use it defensively since they were overextended and trying to hold on to their overextended lines for a few weeks until they withdrew.
Russia's "big artillery" offensive around Lysychans'k later was only possible because that area was much closer to Russian logistics hubs so they could move up a huge volume of artillery ammo every day. This wasn't possible anywhere near Kiev. I'm sure you remember the "convoy" of miles and miles of backed up russian vehicles in the first weeks of the war, that was because the attack on Kiev had no rail support, so Russia was forced to inefficiently use their inadequate truck transport over a long distance on one small road.
Russia never had a lot of artillery in range of Kiev, let alone the logistics capacity to bring up enough ammo to do much damage to Kiev. They only had a small number spread out in range of the outskirts, and they were constantly forced to use it defensively since they were overextended and trying to hold on to their overextended lines for a few weeks until they withdrew.
Russia's "big artillery" offensive around Lysychans'k later was only possible because that area was much closer to Russian logistics hubs so they could move up a huge volume of artillery ammo every day. This wasn't possible anywhere near Kiev. I'm sure you remember the "convoy" of miles and miles of backed up russian vehicles in the first weeks of the war, that was because the attack on Kiev had no rail support, so Russia was forced to inefficiently use their inadequate truck transport over a long distance on one small road.