From the angle we can't see what he was doing. For all we know, he disregarded instructions to stop, Russian soldiers didn't know what was in the bike basket, and his failure to follow instructions gave them a legal right to conclude he was making an attack and put him down. Thus not a war crime.
Taking this reply together with your previous post, it seems to me as if you're saying, "Ukraine killed them all and it was a war crime, except for the ones we have video evidence of Russians killing, and those killings were not a war crime." I hope you can see how such a position ... appears to reek of motivated reasoning, to say the least. But perhaps I've misunderstood you?
That said, this 2nd point you want me to address: All military campaigns involve losses, any competent military will account for that and have a set amount of new recruits and equipment in reserve and being brought in as new recruits/production to replace losses. With less than 10k in causalities of all types and an active duty force of 1m+ men and reserves of 2m men and ~200k drafted each year, the losses in Ukraine are manageable for Russia.
Same for vehicle losses given their stockpiles and new production.
With regard to personnel, there are all sorts of factors that go into "replacement", such as their level of training, etc. There is no doubt that Russia could hypothetically field many more conscripts than the number of soldiers that are currently fighting, but they wouldn't necessarily be as good. Even if all-volunteer, quality is not guaranteed for a new pilot vs. one that had years of experience that went down in his plane.
But we can hopefully evaluate losses in materiel more concretely. For example, what I specifically questioned you on was your claim that losses of aircraft were below replacement rate. So how many piloted fighters do you believe have been lost in the war so far, and how many do you believe have been newly put into service or restored to service from a mothballed state? Same question for helicopters. edit: and, if it's possible to know, how does the quality compare? For instance, new-ish fighters being "replaced" with ones that are 15 years older with avionics 30 years older because it didn't get the same upgrades.
It seems ridiculous to me to think that Russia is keeping its numbers of active service aircraft stable despite losses. Same for armored vehicles, logistics equipment, etc. The only reason Ukraine's stocks of military equipment aren't melting away is because of a constant influx from NATO countries, and Russia has no such influx. (Well, and arguably Ukraine has the influx from Russian captured stuff if one believes the memes, but I think we can agree that this by itself wouldn't be enough on either side, and most especially not the side that recently had to stage large scale withdrawals which inevitably leave lots of equipment behind.)
