3 ms·

You are just giving an example of how lack of "coherence between means and ends" leads to failure. A military occupation (means) is not an effective way to ach

You are just giving an example of how lack of "coherence between means and ends" leads to failure. A military occupation (means) is not an effective way to achieve lasting control over the civilian population (ends) unless much of the population is already on your side, so it is foolish to try to use those means to achieve those ends. Russia has also been hurt quite badly by lack of moral restraint in the war against Ukraine (which in the context Clausewitz used it I believe means more whether you have rational control of your actions than whether your actions are "good" or "bad"). Attacking civilians is usually extremely ineffective at achieving anything other than making leaders feel good that they are hurting their enemies and usually just hardens the enemy's resolve to continue fighting.

aerostable_slug 1y ago
I think Russia has been quite restrained. I'm not defending them in any way, but many Ukrainians still have electric power, running water, and other trappings of modern society. If the present Russian regime chose otherwise I'm not sure that they would. It doesn't take a great deal of precision to mission-kill water works and other civil infrastructure that has survived in rear areas. It seems to me both sides have been sending signals with their respective attacks on 'homeland' targets, rather than going fully gloves-off. Agreed that it's not working out for the Russians.
- AuthAuth 1y ago
  Russia targets Ukrainian Infra. It goes down and ukraine brings it back online. They also have air defense assets protecting key infra. Russia doesnt leave it up because of moral reasons, they're doing what they can to win and that includes attacking the grid.
  - noitpmeder 1y ago
    I think it's a bit insane to think that Russia couldn't completely and totally obliterate civilian central infrastructure in Ukraine if it wanted to. It's not like these locations are hidden or top-secret, or like Ukraine has the ability to completely and inevitably stop the attacks. However, whatever wins this achieved would probably instantly be overshadowed by the negatives. Think of mass famine, relocation, refugee-ism, ... Not to mention a destroyed infrastructure that the eventual owner needs to rebuild as a first priority. Not even to mention the increased levels of international condemnation due to such a targeted attack on a civilian population.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      > I think it's a bit insane to think that Russia couldn't completely and totally obliterate civilian central infrastructure in Ukraine if it wanted to. It really can not. > It's not like these locations are hidden or top-secret, or like Ukraine has the ability to completely and inevitably stop the attacks. You'd be surprised how much explosives you need to actually destroy the infrastructure. Russia simply doesn't have enough long-range rockets, and drones can't carry large charges.
    - lm28469 1y ago
      > I think it's a bit insane to think that Russia couldn't completely and totally obliterate civilian central infrastructure in Ukraine if it wanted to. What's your take then ? They're pretending to suck at war for 3 years for fun ? They're pretending to use 50 years old equipment as a decoy for ww3 ? They're pretending to get all their refineries shut down for reasons ?
- rcxdude 1y ago
  Nations have tried what Russia is trying with much, much more explosives and demonstrated that strategic bombing doesn't really work. Ukraine's infrastructure is intact because Russia is unable to destroy it. To the extent that such attacks have a useful military purpose, it is mainly in tying up air defense capabilities that could be protecting military assets.

aerostable_slug 1y ago

I think Russia has been quite restrained. I'm not defending them in any way, but many Ukrainians still have electric power, running water, and other trappings of modern society. If the present Russian regime chose otherwise I'm not sure that they would. It doesn't take a great deal of precision to mission-kill water works and other civil infrastructure that has survived in rear areas. It seems to me both sides have been sending signals with their respective attacks on 'homeland' targets, rather than going fully gloves-off. Agreed that it's not working out for the Russians.

AuthAuth 1y ago
Russia targets Ukrainian Infra. It goes down and ukraine brings it back online. They also have air defense assets protecting key infra. Russia doesnt leave it up because of moral reasons, they're doing what they can to win and that includes attacking the grid.
- noitpmeder 1y ago
  I think it's a bit insane to think that Russia couldn't completely and totally obliterate civilian central infrastructure in Ukraine if it wanted to. It's not like these locations are hidden or top-secret, or like Ukraine has the ability to completely and inevitably stop the attacks. However, whatever wins this achieved would probably instantly be overshadowed by the negatives. Think of mass famine, relocation, refugee-ism, ... Not to mention a destroyed infrastructure that the eventual owner needs to rebuild as a first priority. Not even to mention the increased levels of international condemnation due to such a targeted attack on a civilian population.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    > I think it's a bit insane to think that Russia couldn't completely and totally obliterate civilian central infrastructure in Ukraine if it wanted to. It really can not. > It's not like these locations are hidden or top-secret, or like Ukraine has the ability to completely and inevitably stop the attacks. You'd be surprised how much explosives you need to actually destroy the infrastructure. Russia simply doesn't have enough long-range rockets, and drones can't carry large charges.
  - lm28469 1y ago
    > I think it's a bit insane to think that Russia couldn't completely and totally obliterate civilian central infrastructure in Ukraine if it wanted to. What's your take then ? They're pretending to suck at war for 3 years for fun ? They're pretending to use 50 years old equipment as a decoy for ww3 ? They're pretending to get all their refineries shut down for reasons ?
rcxdude 1y ago
Nations have tried what Russia is trying with much, much more explosives and demonstrated that strategic bombing doesn't really work. Ukraine's infrastructure is intact because Russia is unable to destroy it. To the extent that such attacks have a useful military purpose, it is mainly in tying up air defense capabilities that could be protecting military assets.