Civilians die in war. That’s very different from targeting civilians. Putin made that choice when he chose war. If you want Ukraine to avoid all civilian casualties, they’re going to be stuck doing what they’ve been doing all along, fighting a war of attrition on their own territory.
Sure, I get that, but if you start bombing civilian infrastructure, you just harm innocent civilians - in particular, the most vulnerable people - and you don’t really do anything to erode public support for the war. If anything it builds public support - it gives the people an enemy in you, rather than in their leaders.
I assure you that bombing Russian civilian infrastructure isn’t going to make the war go any faster. Providing equipment, training and personnel to the war effort and focusing on the military targets in the actual war zone is what would make the war end more quickly.
Well, I’ll take your word for it since you and other other saying similar things are getting all the votes. It’s not someone I’ve paid that much attention to, seeing as how I’ll never be in a position to influence decisions at that level of detail.
The main thing for me is I wish Ukraine were given free rein to fight back as they see fit. I trust them more than myself to make good strategic decisions.
Entire swathes of Europe were decimated by bombing. Look at Coventry, or London. Did that dissuade the fighting spirit of Britain? Not even a bit. If anything, it galvanised resolve. Strategic bombing just turns innocent people into enemies who have a reason to get revenge.
Effective at what? Germany capitulated only once it was almost fully occupied (e.g. Berlin, Rhineland). The bombs might have helped by binding resources and demoralizing the population but that didn’t affect the capitulation directly.
“Strategic bombing”, also known as the mass murder of innocent people, has been known to be ineffective for nearly a century.
I’m not calling for mass murder of civilians. More like taking out infrastructure.
I mean, ultimately, innocent people would still die. I think focusing on military and government targets is the way to go, ideally
Civilians die in war. That’s very different from targeting civilians. Putin made that choice when he chose war. If you want Ukraine to avoid all civilian casualties, they’re going to be stuck doing what they’ve been doing all along, fighting a war of attrition on their own territory.
Sure, I get that, but if you start bombing civilian infrastructure, you just harm innocent civilians - in particular, the most vulnerable people - and you don’t really do anything to erode public support for the war. If anything it builds public support - it gives the people an enemy in you, rather than in their leaders.
I assure you that bombing Russian civilian infrastructure isn’t going to make the war go any faster. Providing equipment, training and personnel to the war effort and focusing on the military targets in the actual war zone is what would make the war end more quickly.
Well, I’ll take your word for it since you and other other saying similar things are getting all the votes. It’s not someone I’ve paid that much attention to, seeing as how I’ll never be in a position to influence decisions at that level of detail.
The main thing for me is I wish Ukraine were given free rein to fight back as they see fit. I trust them more than myself to make good strategic decisions.
Ehm, the Germans got bombed into oblivion. It was quite effective.
Entire swathes of Europe were decimated by bombing. Look at Coventry, or London. Did that dissuade the fighting spirit of Britain? Not even a bit. If anything, it galvanised resolve. Strategic bombing just turns innocent people into enemies who have a reason to get revenge.
Effective at what? Germany capitulated only once it was almost fully occupied (e.g. Berlin, Rhineland). The bombs might have helped by binding resources and demoralizing the population but that didn’t affect the capitulation directly.