• 420stalin69@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I guess in the abstract it makes sense. Like, if someone is attacking you with planes it makes sense to target their airfields.

    But when you add the context that they lack the weapons to target front line targets, then it begs the question why prioritize secondary targets like supporting infrastructure and tertiary targets like energy?

    It’s like the V2 rocket program in WW2. The fact Germany could still hit London sounds impressive but when you actually think about why the Germans were pursuing that option instead of devoting the resources to more strategically important concerns and the desperation of the move reveals itself.

    This is all to say that sure it makes sense in the abstract to target your enemies infrastructure during war but when you choose those targets instead of the front line, and what’s more you say it as some kind of threat to your would-be suppliers (“supply us or else we will do this”) then it’s revealing quite a lot about their desperation, about their strategic priorities, about their true relationship with their primary allies, and it points towards a kind of brinksmanship in which Ukraine is looking basically threatening to escalate the war into an actual NATO-Russia confrontation or is threatening to trigger economic hardship on its allies if they don’t supply another army worth of gear.