Why can’t they use artillery inside from their borders and destroy all architecture that may be useful to the Ukrainian army like communications, industry, and the power grid?They could also destroy all bridges and roads leading to the city to stop all supplies from the rest of Ukraine.
that's not a serious question though
It is
Destroying all industries would make Ukraine more dependent on aid
The question is why they haven’t done it
I’m talking specifically about Kharkiv because it’s on the Russian border
What industries are still operational in Kharkiv?
>The question is why they haven’t done it
Because they can't, their guns are too inaccurate and thier intel is too poor.
Trying would simply be a waste of ammo, something that is growing scarcer for the russians by the day
The nearest possible point to Kharkiv they could set up their artillery on their side is 25 km from the closest edge of Kharkiv, and between 35 and 45 km for the kind of targets and "targets" they seem to consider valid. That's assuming they can even put it there, as there are civilian homes along the single shitty narrow road they'd have to move all their equipment through. This means the best possible cross-border staging area is probably close to or past the
hard range limit on their howitzers, and well past the range at which they'd have any accuracy, meaning they'd be shelling indisputably civilian targets like small shops and housing in a manner that seems indiscriminate and terroristic.
I don't know what the Ukies are operating like, but military communications and power are supposed to be independent of civilian infrastructure.
How would you destroy a road exactly? Keep in mind that roads in Ukraine are in open fields.
Russian Military: "Holy shit why didn't we think of that?? thanks anon"
Russian Commander: SERGE!!, MAN THE MISSILE ROCKET, DAA
We'll destroy all those nazie holol roads.
Serge: But Commander, all the long range rockets are kaput.
Russian Commander: did I stutter?
You don't know much about artillery's max range and Ukraine's vast size, huh?
Ukraine is fricking huge. You just don't realize it because we use a globe designed by a dude who wanted England to be the center of the world.
It's like asking why people in Oklahoma don't drive down to Houston for brunch.
Huge is such a relative term. I mean its like the size of 5 eastern US states, but compared to the rest of Europe I suppose it's "huge"
It would just get fixed in a couple days and most of the infrastructure was built during soviet times to be usable after a possible nuclear confrontation.
Because nothing stops ukraine from doing counterfire even your artys are inside russia.
Hells ukies would have even less restrictions because they do not need to worry about their own infrastructure.
If Russia strikes first wouldn’t they be able to disable most of the Ukrainian artillery making their retaliation less damaging and they would also get a reason to mobilize their population.
1) they don't have good enough precision arty
2) they don't have good enough intel from their bootleg sat constellation
>If Russia strikes first
Building up that kind of firepower near border is kinda obvious, especially with yanks keeping eye from the skies. Your "first strike" would become a huge scrapyard quickly.
>a reason to mobilize their population
Putin does not really need any excuse for it if he actually wants to do it.
But mobilization is not some magic button where millions just appear fully armed at the frontlines. Even if russia started mobilizing today they would be hard pushed to get any significant force over to ukraine before the land starts freezing over.
No? Why do you assume that Russia can strike first at Ukrainian arty, but isn't currently doing so?
>they would also get a reason to mobilize their population
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
Serious question:
Why are Russians raping and murdering Ukrainians inside the sovereign territory of the country of Ukraine?
I'm told it is because they are le based, and destroying le global liberal order
to spread AIDS
They tried in April and largely destroyed the tank factory but in may the Ukranians pushed them back such that really only the north of the city is in range. The Russians do shell Ukrainian military infrastructure that is within range.
Because it would trigger a *massive* humanitarian crisis, where that would wind up putting more strain on the West not only through needing to provide aid which they'd probably struggle to do (for the sheer volume it would require, in an active high-intensity warzone), but also the refugee crisis that it would spawn might actually all in conjunction be some shit to get NATO to intervene.
It's not a gamble worth taking if you're intent on keeping NATO out, which despite all the absolute moronic nuke-mongering, Russia *does not* actually want to happen.
Counter artillery
I know it'll break your brain, but: russian army is not fighting civilians. 2 months before attacking Severodonetsk and Lysichansk, all electric substations were destroyed and the region had no electricity.
That's about the only compromise they went for, but otherwise: bombing non-military targets is off-limits.
Unlike burgers who began bombing Serbia and Iraq by targetting water mains and electric grid, Russia shares a border with Ukraine and has to live with people on those territories in the future (except for a few activists who will be arrested).
>bombing non-military targets is off-limits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack
By the rules US itself came up with, anything within 200m of valid military targets is fair game and is a valid target. The shopping centre was like 170meters, meaning it was a precision strike at a military installation by US standards.
Whataboutism is standard Russian fare when faced with ineptitude
It's not whataboutism. US itself defined what a precision strike and valid military target are to suck themselves off and say that "these civilian casualties don't count because we tried and used precision weapons."
The US doesn't miss by 170 m though. In fact they dropped a drone fired slapchop into a guy's car in a populated area and minced just the guys in the car, no explosion even necessary.
>RUSSIA CANT BE GOOD BECAUSE ONCE THEY MISSED THE TERRORISTS THEY TARGETED ... SO THEY BAD
>you define this as perfectly in range of a mistake when you do the same and worse
>POINTING OUT IM CONTRADICTING MY OWN "LOGIC" IS A FALLACY BECAUSE .... IT JUST IS!
>no thats just literally using the terminology defined by you constantly "missing" targets
>ONCE WE DIDNT MISS WHEN WE MURDERED SOME INNOCENT GUY ... SO ACTUALLY WE NEVER MISS THAAAAAT MUCH! ... SO WE GOOD! RUSSIA ONCE MISSED MOOOOORE ... SO THEY BAD!!!
Pseudofallacyist straw men and doubling down with pars pro totos are standard Amerimutt fare when faced with facts foiling their deception and manipulation
You're full of shit. The US defines 'precision strike' as much, MUCH tighter than 200m. You're thinking of 'danger close.'
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11353
>Russians bomb Kramatorsk and immediately post on social media about successful attack
>Turns out they killed hundreds of women, children and grandparents trying to escape the war
>Whoop, hold up now, the Ukrainians probably...I mean we dont target..we dont...
>bombing non-military targets is off-limits.
except for all those non military targets they’ve bombed
They already tried this in the early days of the invasion, but their intelligence is trash. Also when it comes to things like bridges and roads, the Russians need those intact if they hope to take territory.