Thats a lot of words to address things i didnt fucking say. maybe i should not have said “targets” maybe i should have said “kills” instead, but lets be clear is not like Russia wouldnt if the felt they needed to, they have targeted civilian infrastructure like the powergrid before.
A powergrid is the quintessential example of dual purpose infrastructure. Without a functioning power grid a modern military’s logistics are crippled. That unfortunately makes power grids absolutely a legitimate target for destruction in a war. The fact that Russia so far has refrained from wiping out Ukraine’s power grid because they are concerned about the serious consequences it would have on the civilian population is a testament to their restraint and patience.
They could easily target and disable most of Ukraine’s power plants, they could leave most of Ukraine without power, without heating and without most forms of telecommunications, but so far all they did was they took out some high value electrical substations that were especially important for the rail sector. And may i remind you that Ukraine, like Russia, uses trains to transport most of its troops and equipment over longer distances.
they have targeted civilian infrastructure like the powergrid before
First, there’s a huge difference between targeting civilian infrastructure vs. actual civilians. Blowing up a bridge across a river in a city is not the same as indiscriminately bombing the city.
Second, there is likely no significant infrastructure that is used purely for civilian purposes. The fact that Russia hasn’t destroyed any infrastructure it can reach (which is virtually everywhere in Ukraine) is evidence that they are showing at least some restraint. Contrast this with Gaza (where the Israel had to be pressured to even allow water in) or the indiscriminate bombing campaigns that everyone conducted in WWII, and the U.S. in particular conducted in Korea and Vietnam.
Thats a lot of words to address things i didnt fucking say. maybe i should not have said “targets” maybe i should have said “kills” instead, but lets be clear is not like Russia wouldnt if the felt they needed to, they have targeted civilian infrastructure like the powergrid before.
A powergrid is the quintessential example of dual purpose infrastructure. Without a functioning power grid a modern military’s logistics are crippled. That unfortunately makes power grids absolutely a legitimate target for destruction in a war. The fact that Russia so far has refrained from wiping out Ukraine’s power grid because they are concerned about the serious consequences it would have on the civilian population is a testament to their restraint and patience.
They could easily target and disable most of Ukraine’s power plants, they could leave most of Ukraine without power, without heating and without most forms of telecommunications, but so far all they did was they took out some high value electrical substations that were especially important for the rail sector. And may i remind you that Ukraine, like Russia, uses trains to transport most of its troops and equipment over longer distances.
First, there’s a huge difference between targeting civilian infrastructure vs. actual civilians. Blowing up a bridge across a river in a city is not the same as indiscriminately bombing the city.
Second, there is likely no significant infrastructure that is used purely for civilian purposes. The fact that Russia hasn’t destroyed any infrastructure it can reach (which is virtually everywhere in Ukraine) is evidence that they are showing at least some restraint. Contrast this with Gaza (where the Israel had to be pressured to even allow water in) or the indiscriminate bombing campaigns that everyone conducted in WWII, and the U.S. in particular conducted in Korea and Vietnam.