Russia is the biggest country area-wise, and apparently they just can’t get enough.
I agree it’s bullshit. But consider whether we’re different. Imagine if, during the 2003 Gulf War, Russia had armed Iraqi militias, and a group of them had made their way into the United States and into Montgomery, Alabama. There, they’d bombed a couple of surburban homes, a preschool, and the county government building. How do you think the US would have reacted?
Or, y’know, think about Sherman’s march.
I think the reason they complain is the reason we would have lost our everloving shit: they see themselves as invulnerable and removed from conflict.
You watch way too many tough-guy movies.
The response to that would be simple:
I, Putin, don’t believe your bluster. Not for a single second.
If Ukraine starts using your weapons on my country we will counterattack into NATO’s supply depots and transportation systems destroying your ability to deliver any more such weapons. You will then face the choice of attacking Russia directly or standing pat. Considering our worldwide nuclear reach, your public and your own sense of survival will demand you choose Door #2.
Now go away and quit wasting my time.
Whether Putin has accurately predicted the future is immaterial. What I propose is what he will predict and that will determine how he behaves.
I don’t think Ukraine should attack any targets in Russia.
-
Putin will use this as propaganda to Russians that Ukraine is attacking the homeland (aided by NATO.)
-
It’s not going to change Putin’s strategy.
-
There is plenty to attack in occupied Ukraine. (I particularly like the idea of blowing up the Crimean (Kerch) bridge.)
Eh, as far as Putin is concerned, everywhere that Ukraine fights is in Russia. So why should it make any difference?
There you go. We’re back to insane troll logic as the only answer.
Russia typically has high casualty rates in war, because they consider their own people expendable. They’ve always fought against themselves.
Can’t agree Mr. Glee. If a military target is easily accessible it should be attacked, rather than a target that’s defended with dug-in soldiers.
If one side (Russia) is actively targeting civilians, asking the other to hobble their response to keep from annoying the Russian masses, well, it seems ridiculous to me. Should Ukraine not have sunk the Moska, because it hurt all those sailor boys? And really should Ukraine be attacking Crimea? A lot of Russia families live there, and paid good money for their homes.
Excursions into Russia force the Red Army to expand their defenses, and at least at the beginning could cause a panic response that brings forces out into open roadways. It could make Russia commit back-up units that aren’t fully trained, or could weaken defenses in nearby cities, making them vulnerable to sabotage,
There’s also a chance that attacks in Russia will cause Russians to respect Ukraine more, and disbelieve optimism coming from Putin. I wouldn’t advise Ukraine to try overthrowing Moscow — which common Russians would see as an existential danger — but border excursions offer real benefits.
Strong disagree with Glee’s analysis, in that it’s incomplete or inconsequential to Ukraine’s aims.
-
Putin will and has already claimed anything going on for propaganda purposes. His people either believe unconditionally, believe that it can’t all be false (the big lie)t, or disbelieve most of it but keep their heads down. Net effect of additional propaganda is probably nil.
-
It won’t change Putin’s strategy, granted, but will likely delay or reduce reinforcements to the Ukrainian front, or disperse such in an effort to prevent / track down such cross border assaults.
-
This I’ll grant, especially the bridge, but pushing some of the damage across the border, as long as it can be done with maximum efficacy and reasonable risk is good in addition to attacks to damage Russian forces in theater.
Personally, I’d love to see a whole bunch of military targets (ammo and fuel dumps, transportation hubs) in Russia go boom. I do agree that in terms of the international PR game, Ukraine should avoid predominantly civilian targets, even if it’s tit-for-tat, it’s not like they’ve got a shortage of military targets to destroy however.
Is anyone else wondering if this is just a false flag operation by Russia?
Intriguing thought. “None of the tanks in this depot have engines anyway. We’ll blow 'em up and blame the Ukrainian fascists.”
Well of course, but they have to keep up the PR that it’s a special military operation, not an invasion, and that their enemy is uniquely evil and doesn’t deserve to fight.
What would have happened if North Vietnam had blown up some stuff in Texas? The reaction of the US government and media would NOT have been “well, it’s a war, them’s the breaks.”
Tit for tat isn’t an excuse anyway. Attacking civilians is a war crime. A military has a moral and legal duty to minimize civilian casualties. Ukraine is a signatory for the Geneva Convention, and its rules are clear regarding civilians.
Oh, no argument @RickJay - that line was more directed at @Baal_Houtham’s post immediately before mine:
Not that I think in any way that B_H was intending that Ukraine actually directly attack civilians, but that legitimate attacks on military targets can and will have secondary effects on the lives of Russian citizens. And (back to the OP) Russia is already trying to make itself as the hero taking un-earned wounds from the Ukrainians - which, yes, does require insane troll logic to justify.
Not really insane troll logic. Just a very carefully one-sided telling of the events and motivations. And if your public believes the one-sided version of events is close enough to the truth, they will also buy the logic you offer. Which logic, based on a highly slanted set of facts, will reasonably support the actions taken.
It would, if you do it effectively enough.
For instance, look at any of the rail lines that Russia is using to bring troops and materiel to the front lines. Trace that line back until it goes over a significant bridge. Blow up that bridge. Then repeat, for all of the other rail lines. Now Russia can’t send anything to the front lines any more, until those bridges are repaired (beyond whatever they can manage by non-rail routes, but Russia’s capability is pathetic there).
Obviously, Ukraine knows this as well as you or I do, so the fact that we haven’t seen a bunch of rail-bridge explosions is a clear sign that they don’t yet have the capability for this sort of strike. But if they got the capability, they would, and it would have a huge effect.
There wouldn’t be much to stop Russia from just making up fake Ukrainian attacks, or doing real “fake” attacks to drum up support at home. Actually I’m surprised they haven’t yet done that in this war.
Because it would make them look weak.