The app for independent voices

Advertising my lack of military knowledge in advance, I have a question concerning Russia's desire to conquer certain cities. In the past, when we fought with more primitive weapons, most building structures would be left intact, even if all the inhabitants were killed. Additionally, the control of significant cities meant controlling supply lines, transportation hubs, manufacturing facilities, and centralized communication centers. Most of these factors are no longer valid. In addition, with modern high explosive munitinitins, there is little left of the city after it has been conquered. When I see pictures (which I guess are accurate) of cities pounded into piles of rubble, I wonder the point of trying to capture this city that no longer exists. Other than the psychological benefit of attempting to demoralize the enemy, all I see is the firming of Ukrainian resolve to resist Russian advances. Also, the Ukrainians know the consequences of being taken prisoner by the Russians, which is another reason for fierce resistance. From a military perspective, wouldn't it make more sense to go around a city, blockade it, destroy any airfields, and offer good terms to anyone who surrenders? I see the Ukrainians doing something similar to what the Russians did to Germany in WWII. Retreat, leave a wasteland behind, and stretch the enemy's supply lines to the breaking point. Not exactly the same, but similarities are enough to make wonder what is passing for military strategy in the minds of the Russian high command?

Mar 22, 2022
at
4:43 PM

Log in or sign up

Join the most interesting and insightful discussions.