upvote
deleted
reply
[flagged]
reply
The Russians have been targeting civilian infrastructure the entire war? Why is blowing up a Amazon warehouse suddenly opening a paradoras box?
reply
[flagged]
reply
> Russia has had this capability for years but have not used it.

Complete bullshit, Russia has been targeting civilian infrastructure from the very beginning. The only thing that changed is that Ukraine is now running out of advanced air defense, so that more of the attacks are getting through.

reply
In this war hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of missiles and drones have been utilized. Defenses on both sides have done a generally good job of disabling them. But "disabling" them doesn't mean they disappear, it often just means that they fall and sometimes explode on impact with whatever they land on. That's going to result in tremendous damage to civilian facilities.

Both sides instead regularly frame it, for propaganda purposes, as being targeted without ever saying as such - 'A [enemy] [drone/missile] struck a beach full of civilians' for instance. That's completely accurate, but misleading because most people think that means the beach was targeted, as opposed to 'we shot down an incoming drone that was headed for a military base and it crashed into a beach'.

The reason things look so different now is because civilian facilities are being targeted. And this isn't just in Ukraine obviously, as per this topic. Ukraine has also had this capability to completely destroy civilian facilities for years. We're only getting these headlines, and likely many more to come as winter approaches, because this Pandora's Box has been opened.

reply
While it is undeniable, that Ukraine has a propaganda as well, it does not have to cover up DELIBERATE targets of civilian infrastructure and then hitting them again when firefighters are arriving, just like Assad did in Syria.

Your comment doesn't really distinguish between DELIBERATE and COLLATERAL damages to civilians and their properties. I do not know what was in your other comments that were flagged, but Yandex data centers are LEGITIMATE TARGETS as they are linked to Kremlin businesses and works for them. So, they are not civilian facilities - same way as Alabuga college students that are assembling military drones - they are legal military targets, regardless of their age and not being in Army.

reply
You should take a walk in downtown Zaporizhzhia if you feel that way, it may change your mind.
reply
> Ukraine has also had this capability to completely destroy civilian facilities for years.

Nope, Ukraine only recently developed long-range strike capabilities.

reply
A quick search shows them striking, or attempting to strike, targets hundreds of miles within Russia at least as far back as early 2023. And they were aiming for energy and military targets, which are going to have vastly more defenses than civilian infrastructure.

[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/28/russia-militar...

reply
> Both sides instead regularly frame it, for propaganda purposes, as being targeted without ever saying as such - 'A [enemy] [drone/missile] struck a beach full of civilians' for instance. That's completely accurate, but misleading because most people think that means the beach was targeted, as opposed to 'we shot down an incoming drone that was headed for a military base and it crashed into a beach'.

Search for "Kherson human safari". Russians are deliberately targeting civilians, this is proven beyond any doubt.

reply
There's a pretty simple way to challenge your assumption here. Here is the Wiki for your example. [1] Apparently a ballpark of 200 civilians were killed there in the years between the war's start and late 2025. So let's assume you're right and Russia genuinely wanted to just go kill civilians in Kherson. It's a city that had a pre-war population of about 280,000.

How many do you think they would have managed to kill? 200 is quite easy to see happening from air defense mishaps, occasional mistargeting, and other such issues - but it's off by orders of magnitude if we assume a targeted campaign against civilians. A campaign against civilians would have multiples of that number per day in such a location.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_safari_(terror_campaign)

reply
> How many do you think they would have managed to kill?

They killed 200 and wounded 2,000. This is information from a year ago.

> but it's off by orders of magnitude if we assume a targeted campaign against civilians.

No, it is not. It's not like they are only attacking civilian targets or concentrating all the drones allocated on that section of the front on Kherson city. Also, Ukrainians regularly eliminate such small drones, so only a fraction manages to actually get through and injure/kill someone.

There are many sources linked on that Wikipedia page extensively documenting Russian human safari in Kherson. There are many videos, such as this one:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4n03xg981o

The evidence is overwhelming.

reply
It seems that you are Russian troll.

Apart from human safari, there is also issue with hostage situation in Oleshki and thousands of dead by Russians using them for target practices and not allowing them to leave.

reply
After 2 years of the russians attacking civilian infrastructure, passenger trains, hospitals. Yes, it was time.
reply
Russia has been indiscriminately attacking civilian structures since they started the war.

All I'm seeing is two sides continuing to escalate and respond to each other while the rest of the world watches.

reply
lol, I'm sorry, you're claiming that Russia, who started this war in the first place and could stop literally any time, also has only started targeting civilian infrastructure in the last two months?

> Wildberries (essentially Russia's Amazon)

And military supplier newly owned by Putin's buddy! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_strikes_on_Wildberri...

reply
[flagged]
reply
It honestly blows my mind that you can still hold such a grim, myopic opinion. Something tells me "they have nukes, we've gotta just let them expand" wouldn't apply if they were bombing your children.
reply
I'm sure you hold the same "for the children" in Gaza.
reply
"Stop resisting" "Look what you made me do" "Dragging this out makes atrocious behaviour inevitable"

Ever heard of Game Theory?

Trump sucks at it. And by the looks of it, you're not very good either.

reply
[flagged]
reply
[flagged]
reply
> Russia started somewhat bombing civilian dual-use infrastructure only after Ukraine started bombing random warehouses in Russia this summer.

Russia bombed Ukrainian infrastructure since the start of the war. Power plants were frequently targeted last winter. The only reason why Russia is more successful now is because Ukraine is running out of advanced air defense.

> Russia could've made whole Ukraine in a literal dead state long ago -- it only takes few rockets to permanently knock out nuclear power plants and water treatment plants. Yet they didn't. I wonder why.

Because Ukraine would strike Russian nuclear power plants in response? Also, political fallout (in addition to the nuclear one) from targeting nuclear power plants would be massive. Sanctions from China and India would be on the table, which would quickly send Russian economy to the gutter.

reply
[flagged]
reply
Well surprised to read such a lame propaganda here. Most of shahed drones are shot by interceptor drones, and have been for a long time. Patriots are only used to down ballistic missiles. The nazis are sending drones into Kyiv alone in thousands per week, and have been doing this for years at this point, so whole Kyiv would be ruined if not for air defence.
reply
> incompetent western warmongers.

Who started this war again?

reply
It's because Russia doesn't want to take over a complete wasteland that will be unproductive for decades if Russia ends up absorbing all of Ukraine.
reply