5 ms·

> It's because Ukraine has no military infrastructure to speak of, anymore. The common tactic thus far was to station military staff and supplies in civilian bu

by _kbh_ 4y ago

> It's because Ukraine has no military infrastructure to speak of, anymore. The common tactic thus far was to station military staff and supplies in civilian buildings, move them out before a strike if possible, then release a news report how Russians are targeting civilian installations. There is a reason this keeps happening, no one spends a billion dollars just shooting missiles at random. Russia 100% does, or else, if they where actually hitting military targets with these missiles they would of won the war by now. Russia uses these terror strikes on civilians as a method of waging war, an attempt to get the enemy to surrender. It's an act of terror, and just one of many war crimes Russia commits weekly.

deworms 4y ago
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  Every single city in Ukraine that Russia has occupied and subsequently left, and why not throw in Chechnya for fun as well. Russia is incapable of conducting proper military operations, its why they rely on their 20th century terror tactics. They haven't learnt that these tactics don't work all the time and can at times just embolden the populace against the enemy.
- krzyk 4y ago
eternalban 4y ago
"The attacks lasted eleven weeks and, according to various estimates, in between 1,200 and 2,500 people were killed. Many buildings, businesses, schools, health centres, media headquarters and cultural monuments were severely damaged or destroyed. A group of economists from the G17 Plus party has estimated the total damages to be about 29.6 billion dollars." Google it. It wasn't the Russians.
- jonwithoutanh 4y ago
  You mean this engagement? "Ukrainian officials also reported that at least 95% of the city had been destroyed during the fighting, largely by Russian bombardments" "The United Nations stated it had confirmed the deaths of 1,348 civilians, but said the true death toll was likely thousands higher, and added that 90% of the city's residential buildings had been damaged or destroyed"
  - eternalban 4y ago
    No, that clearly was a reference to NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. Your google foo is seriously off.

by _kbh_ 4y ago

deworms 4y ago

_kbh_ 4y ago
Every single city in Ukraine that Russia has occupied and subsequently left, and why not throw in Chechnya for fun as well. Russia is incapable of conducting proper military operations, its why they rely on their 20th century terror tactics. They haven't learnt that these tactics don't work all the time and can at times just embolden the populace against the enemy.
krzyk 4y ago

eternalban 4y ago

"The attacks lasted eleven weeks and, according to various estimates, in between 1,200 and 2,500 people were killed. Many buildings, businesses, schools, health centres, media headquarters and cultural monuments were severely damaged or destroyed. A group of economists from the G17 Plus party has estimated the total damages to be about 29.6 billion dollars." Google it. It wasn't the Russians.

jonwithoutanh 4y ago
You mean this engagement? "Ukrainian officials also reported that at least 95% of the city had been destroyed during the fighting, largely by Russian bombardments" "The United Nations stated it had confirmed the deaths of 1,348 civilians, but said the true death toll was likely thousands higher, and added that 90% of the city's residential buildings had been damaged or destroyed"
- eternalban 4y ago
  No, that clearly was a reference to NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. Your google foo is seriously off.