10 ms·

Putin's terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructure make no military sense. The only thing I can think of as to why he's doing it is that he's a dictator

Putin's terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructure make no military sense. The only thing I can think of as to why he's doing it is that he's a dictator on thin ice and has to demonstrate something in order to hold on to power. And we can also thank the Iranian mullahs and IRGC for making this possible. This is the world the IRGC has been pushing for for decades. EDIT: in case you're interested, a link to what is going on: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-russian-attacks-on-power-plants-spurs-emergency-actions https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-repo...

farseer 4y ago
Power plants were also a target of American bombers on the opening night of 1991 gulf war.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - knewter 4y ago
    "whataboutism" is the stupidest way I see people avoid engaging actual debates . > Putin's terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructure make no military sense. (Points out that there's plenty of military precedent for this, aside from it being an obvious tactic) > WHATABOUTISM! maybe you can see how this behavior ruins discourse and guarantees you get dumber over time, but I doubt it.
- yetihehe 4y ago
  And in medieval times, there were dead bodies with diseases thrown over the wall with catapults. Maybe we should try this next on Russians? Or maybe bomb their power plants, if all is permitted?
- _int3_ 4y ago
  Nuclear reactors become preferred targets during military conflict and, over the past three decades, have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and campaigns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plant... So yes, power plants are probable targets in war.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mamonster 4y ago
Of course it makes military sense. Attacking supply lines and civilian infrastructure is one of the oldest military tactics that exist. The line of argument against that is obviously "but Hitler tried it in Britain and it didn't work", but for the majority of history it did work. When electricity is disabled, civilian life takes a massive hit. As the OP shows in his post, modern cities don't work all that well without electricity. And remember: Food for the soldiers, heating in their army base, etc, all run on it. So with winter approaching it will most likely be very uncomfortable, as the heating requirements are obviously magnified. Of course, there is an option to mitigate it: oil/gas/coal. Where will the civil society get this oil/gas? Fossil fuels are probably the one thing that NATO cannot supply this winter(remember that Ukraine was until recently exporting energy to Europe, namely Poland), given how horrible the markets are in general. And remember that any oil that is used to heat something could have been used to fuel a tank. To summarize, there are very real reasons to bomb civilian infrastructure for a military goal. The civilian society is the one that supports the war effort and provides the army with a lot of stuff they need to fight, and in the modern world civilian society needs electricity to run. Given that Putin is now resorting to such tactics, the next step for him would be openly bombing electricity lines and railroads. NATO has to take these attacks very seriously, in a military context. Don't know how they will do it but they need to figure out how to get Ukraine electricity this winter.
- rapjr9 4y ago
  However Russia's troops probably rely on Ukrainian electricity in their temporary bases. Without it they have to bring even more fuel with them, especially in the winter, creating new logistic problems. On the other hand most of Ukraine's trains are electric, so moving war machinery and industrial supplies will become more difficult for Ukraine. Yet if Ukraine can't use the rails they will likely damage them to keep Russia from using them, which again will create logistic problems for Russia. Seems like both sides are harmed by cutting electricity. An obvious response will be to cut power to Crimea and other occupied territories as well.

farseer 4y ago

Power plants were also a target of American bombers on the opening night of 1991 gulf war.

tomohawk 4y ago
[flagged]
- knewter 4y ago
  "whataboutism" is the stupidest way I see people avoid engaging actual debates . > Putin's terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructure make no military sense. (Points out that there's plenty of military precedent for this, aside from it being an obvious tactic) > WHATABOUTISM! maybe you can see how this behavior ruins discourse and guarantees you get dumber over time, but I doubt it.
yetihehe 4y ago
And in medieval times, there were dead bodies with diseases thrown over the wall with catapults. Maybe we should try this next on Russians? Or maybe bomb their power plants, if all is permitted?
_int3_ 4y ago
Nuclear reactors become preferred targets during military conflict and, over the past three decades, have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and campaigns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plant... So yes, power plants are probable targets in war.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mamonster 4y ago

Of course it makes military sense. Attacking supply lines and civilian infrastructure is one of the oldest military tactics that exist. The line of argument against that is obviously "but Hitler tried it in Britain and it didn't work", but for the majority of history it did work. When electricity is disabled, civilian life takes a massive hit. As the OP shows in his post, modern cities don't work all that well without electricity. And remember: Food for the soldiers, heating in their army base, etc, all run on it. So with winter approaching it will most likely be very uncomfortable, as the heating requirements are obviously magnified. Of course, there is an option to mitigate it: oil/gas/coal. Where will the civil society get this oil/gas? Fossil fuels are probably the one thing that NATO cannot supply this winter(remember that Ukraine was until recently exporting energy to Europe, namely Poland), given how horrible the markets are in general. And remember that any oil that is used to heat something could have been used to fuel a tank. To summarize, there are very real reasons to bomb civilian infrastructure for a military goal. The civilian society is the one that supports the war effort and provides the army with a lot of stuff they need to fight, and in the modern world civilian society needs electricity to run. Given that Putin is now resorting to such tactics, the next step for him would be openly bombing electricity lines and railroads. NATO has to take these attacks very seriously, in a military context. Don't know how they will do it but they need to figure out how to get Ukraine electricity this winter.

rapjr9 4y ago
However Russia's troops probably rely on Ukrainian electricity in their temporary bases. Without it they have to bring even more fuel with them, especially in the winter, creating new logistic problems. On the other hand most of Ukraine's trains are electric, so moving war machinery and industrial supplies will become more difficult for Ukraine. Yet if Ukraine can't use the rails they will likely damage them to keep Russia from using them, which again will create logistic problems for Russia. Seems like both sides are harmed by cutting electricity. An obvious response will be to cut power to Crimea and other occupied territories as well.