4 ms·

It's the only way to beat an enemy entrenched in a city. See Fallujah or Raqqa for similar battles.

by caoilte 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
watwut 4y ago
No, "we have no choice because enemy soldiers exists" is an excuse when you want to level the city.
- caoilte 4y ago
  Why would Russia/DNR voluntarily level a city they want to incorporate into their breakaway republic? That's just falling into the "they're all orcs" propaganda trap. The use of artillery etc ramped up as the Russians realized they wouldn't take the city any other way, but if the Ukranian army / Azov had vacated Russia would have happily taken the city without a shot fired. Russia invading is already a war crime, but we don't need to pretend that they're behaving any differently to the way we did in Iraq.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Why would Russia/DNR voluntarily level a city they want to incorporate into their breakaway republic? DNR, isn't the main or controlling actor doing it, and “incorporate into a breakaway republic” isn’t Russia’s primary, much less sole, goal with their operation. > Russia invading is already a war crime Technically, no, it's a crime against peace, a separate category of breach of international law.
  - watwut 4y ago
    In fact, they had an option of not leveling it. They also have option to not bomb hospitals too and they don't take those options. "Why" is speculation. Possibly because strategic impossible of city is in land and not in existing citizens who don't welcomed them anyway. Possibly to create pressure on Ukraine President. Possibly because this is what Russian army do routinely and don't need super concrete reason to do - this is not first time they leveled the city. They did not needed to do so in Syria nor in Chechnia. Genocides don't necessary happen because aggressor had no choice. Starting with assumption that they had no choice is judt yet another fallacy.
    - caoilte 4y ago
      If you start from the assumption that the war wasn't necessary then you are correct to point out that leveling residential areas also wasn't necessary. However, we wouldn't have re-occupied cities in Iraq that resisted without leveling them and Russia wouldn't have conquered Mariupol without leveling the parts of the city that contained entrenched defenders. That's the awful thing about urban warfare. Luckily we're not at genocide yet, though.
      - watwut 4y ago
        Even if was was necessary, leveling residential areas of major city was not. But, that war was not necessary in the first place. Both war and the destruction of city were optional and deliberate. > However, we wouldn't have re-occupied cities in Iraq that resisted without leveling them and Russia wouldn't have conquered Mariupol without leveling the parts of the city that contained entrenched defenders. Both are crimes and mass murders of civilians. Neither was necessary. > That's the awful thing about urban warfare. Luckily we're not at genocide yet, though. Who is that "we"? USA in Iraq did not committed genocide. Russia in Ukraine is committing one now.
        caoilte 4y ago
        What Russia is doing is evil. But if you call it genocide you do a cruel dis-service to the millions killed in Rwanda, the holocaust and even Ukraine during the holodomor.
knownjorbist 4y ago
That's not actually how those were fought at all.
- caoilte 4y ago
  The result was the same. Maybe we used less arty and more airstrikes I guess.
kergonath 4y ago
Not at all. That’s terror tactics when you cannot achieve your goal otherwise. It’s also completely counter productive in a country or region you plan or want to annex. Fallujah, Raqqa, and even Mosul were organised operations, during which neighbourhoods were isolated, reduced, and then taken street after street more or less methodically. Nobody ever sat there just bombing indiscriminately. The closest example you could find is Aleppo. Taking Fallujah: ~2000 insurgents killed, ~1000 captured, ~800 dead civilians, ~10000 buildings destroyed out of ~50000. Even without taking the 90% destruction rate at face value, Mariupol is already much, much worse (at least 4 times the number of civilian casualties, double the number of dead Ukrainians soldiers, and more than half the buildings destroyed). And the numbers will likely grow more and more as mass graves are recovered.
- caoilte 4y ago
  Fallujah sounds like terror tactics to me. It was defended by a poorly armed militia far smaller than the western trained and armed forces in Ukraine and America still had to destroy 20% of the city. Years later 200,000 of the 350,000 residents still hadn't returned, birth defects from depleted uranium had sky rocketed and people were still suffering white phosphorus burns. And Raqqa was far worse. The difference is propaganda. When we destroy a city it's methodical and proportionate. When our enemies do it it's genocide and terror tactics. But urban warfare is always awful.

It's the only way to beat an enemy entrenched in a city. See Fallujah or Raqqa for similar battles.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

watwut 4y ago

No, "we have no choice because enemy soldiers exists" is an excuse when you want to level the city.

caoilte 4y ago
Why would Russia/DNR voluntarily level a city they want to incorporate into their breakaway republic? That's just falling into the "they're all orcs" propaganda trap. The use of artillery etc ramped up as the Russians realized they wouldn't take the city any other way, but if the Ukranian army / Azov had vacated Russia would have happily taken the city without a shot fired. Russia invading is already a war crime, but we don't need to pretend that they're behaving any differently to the way we did in Iraq.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Why would Russia/DNR voluntarily level a city they want to incorporate into their breakaway republic? DNR, isn't the main or controlling actor doing it, and “incorporate into a breakaway republic” isn’t Russia’s primary, much less sole, goal with their operation. > Russia invading is already a war crime Technically, no, it's a crime against peace, a separate category of breach of international law.
- watwut 4y ago
  In fact, they had an option of not leveling it. They also have option to not bomb hospitals too and they don't take those options. "Why" is speculation. Possibly because strategic impossible of city is in land and not in existing citizens who don't welcomed them anyway. Possibly to create pressure on Ukraine President. Possibly because this is what Russian army do routinely and don't need super concrete reason to do - this is not first time they leveled the city. They did not needed to do so in Syria nor in Chechnia. Genocides don't necessary happen because aggressor had no choice. Starting with assumption that they had no choice is judt yet another fallacy.
  - caoilte 4y ago
    If you start from the assumption that the war wasn't necessary then you are correct to point out that leveling residential areas also wasn't necessary. However, we wouldn't have re-occupied cities in Iraq that resisted without leveling them and Russia wouldn't have conquered Mariupol without leveling the parts of the city that contained entrenched defenders. That's the awful thing about urban warfare. Luckily we're not at genocide yet, though.
    - watwut 4y ago
      Even if was was necessary, leveling residential areas of major city was not. But, that war was not necessary in the first place. Both war and the destruction of city were optional and deliberate. > However, we wouldn't have re-occupied cities in Iraq that resisted without leveling them and Russia wouldn't have conquered Mariupol without leveling the parts of the city that contained entrenched defenders. Both are crimes and mass murders of civilians. Neither was necessary. > That's the awful thing about urban warfare. Luckily we're not at genocide yet, though. Who is that "we"? USA in Iraq did not committed genocide. Russia in Ukraine is committing one now.
      - caoilte 4y ago
        What Russia is doing is evil. But if you call it genocide you do a cruel dis-service to the millions killed in Rwanda, the holocaust and even Ukraine during the holodomor.

knownjorbist 4y ago

That's not actually how those were fought at all.

caoilte 4y ago
The result was the same. Maybe we used less arty and more airstrikes I guess.

kergonath 4y ago

Not at all. That’s terror tactics when you cannot achieve your goal otherwise. It’s also completely counter productive in a country or region you plan or want to annex. Fallujah, Raqqa, and even Mosul were organised operations, during which neighbourhoods were isolated, reduced, and then taken street after street more or less methodically. Nobody ever sat there just bombing indiscriminately. The closest example you could find is Aleppo. Taking Fallujah: ~2000 insurgents killed, ~1000 captured, ~800 dead civilians, ~10000 buildings destroyed out of ~50000. Even without taking the 90% destruction rate at face value, Mariupol is already much, much worse (at least 4 times the number of civilian casualties, double the number of dead Ukrainians soldiers, and more than half the buildings destroyed). And the numbers will likely grow more and more as mass graves are recovered.

caoilte 4y ago
Fallujah sounds like terror tactics to me. It was defended by a poorly armed militia far smaller than the western trained and armed forces in Ukraine and America still had to destroy 20% of the city. Years later 200,000 of the 350,000 residents still hadn't returned, birth defects from depleted uranium had sky rocketed and people were still suffering white phosphorus burns. And Raqqa was far worse. The difference is propaganda. When we destroy a city it's methodical and proportionate. When our enemies do it it's genocide and terror tactics. But urban warfare is always awful.