If that is true, it makes the Russian planning look even worse.
Hostomel was a large airfield right on the Belarus-Kyiv axis, close to the capital and close enough to the northern ground thrust to be relieved. If Russia seized that and still had no serious plan to use it for rapid reinforcement, then what exactly was the point?
Not wanting to use it as an airbridge is not a more competent explanation. It is worse. It means they risked elite airborne troops on a high-risk assault against one of the most useful airbridge locations imaginable, then apparently had no meaningful operational use for it.
a/ What planning?
b/ AFAIK that is what you use elite forces for, not for a milk run.
We agree, taking the airbase was valuable and successful. We don't know the Russian plans
(unless you have some information that we don't), all we have is that Ukraine lost the airbase
but (according to Ukraine) denied its use to Russia,
what use?
After a successful coup, I think that the airbase would have been extremely valuable, but the coup failed. How many available options wanted Russia? What contingency plans were studied? I
(we) don't know, the simple fact of denying it to Ukraine was already a successful operation. Why risking continuous air operations against that target when you can easily take it?
Russia took the objective, the coup failed and Russia didn't use the airbridge. As for the “why” and the what, when, who, we need the Russian plans, not Ukrainian propaganda.
I never took a course at the Ryazan Guards Higher Airborne Command School, I just provide options based on what I have read.