'The loss of this mine will mean a sharp drop in steel production, which is important both for their military industry and is a major source of foreign exchange earnings.'
Would someone (serious question - not a rhetorical question) like to explain to me why Russia has not destroyed the steel production in Ukraine? I mean, if this is an existential war - and I assume it is for Russia - why not destroy all industrial infrastructure in Ukraine to vastly shorten the war? The Russians are moving much quicker these days, so the war may be over in a year, but what if it drags on? Why not destroy the economy that is the foundation of the war (along with western weapons and money) for Ukraine. The allies certainly destroyed the entire German and Japanese economies in WWII.
Btw, I am one American who can say that I don't think Trump will end the war in Ukraine. I think Trump is delusional and he thinks the US can intimidate Russia into a bad settlement for Russia. Not going to happen. Believe me, America is just full of idiots and morons who just don't understand the world that they live in.
Remember that the entirety of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaparojhia oblasts are now part of Russia, so why would Russia waste ammunition, time and soldiers' lives to destroy any civilian infrastructure in territory that will belong to itself when the SMO is over?
I think part of the reason has been VVP's reluctance to destroy Ukraine as a nation given that he sees the conflict as a form of civil war. That is also why it took Russia so long to attack key civilian infrastructure surrounding power generation, and so on.
In this regard I think it's also fair to say that Russia has fought this war along the lines of international law, as opposed to say NATO, which operates on the Stone Age option, which is actually illegal.
And I guess that there is a long-sighted view that if you can capture something without destroying it, then that saves investment money later on when you're nation building.
I think now, if a target needs to be eliminated it will be. The Russian Armed Forces have used restraint from turning everything into scorched earth so far and have very few defeats.
go russia!!
'The loss of this mine will mean a sharp drop in steel production, which is important both for their military industry and is a major source of foreign exchange earnings.'
Would someone (serious question - not a rhetorical question) like to explain to me why Russia has not destroyed the steel production in Ukraine? I mean, if this is an existential war - and I assume it is for Russia - why not destroy all industrial infrastructure in Ukraine to vastly shorten the war? The Russians are moving much quicker these days, so the war may be over in a year, but what if it drags on? Why not destroy the economy that is the foundation of the war (along with western weapons and money) for Ukraine. The allies certainly destroyed the entire German and Japanese economies in WWII.
Btw, I am one American who can say that I don't think Trump will end the war in Ukraine. I think Trump is delusional and he thinks the US can intimidate Russia into a bad settlement for Russia. Not going to happen. Believe me, America is just full of idiots and morons who just don't understand the world that they live in.
Remember that the entirety of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaparojhia oblasts are now part of Russia, so why would Russia waste ammunition, time and soldiers' lives to destroy any civilian infrastructure in territory that will belong to itself when the SMO is over?
I think part of the reason has been VVP's reluctance to destroy Ukraine as a nation given that he sees the conflict as a form of civil war. That is also why it took Russia so long to attack key civilian infrastructure surrounding power generation, and so on.
In this regard I think it's also fair to say that Russia has fought this war along the lines of international law, as opposed to say NATO, which operates on the Stone Age option, which is actually illegal.
And I guess that there is a long-sighted view that if you can capture something without destroying it, then that saves investment money later on when you're nation building.
I think now, if a target needs to be eliminated it will be. The Russian Armed Forces have used restraint from turning everything into scorched earth so far and have very few defeats.
i agree with your last paragraph.. regarding destroying the infrastructure, perhaps long term it would be better not to destroy it??