Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said Russian missile strikes across Ukraine last week disabled nearly half of the country’s energy infrastructure, leaving millions of Ukrainians without power.
“Unfortunately Russia continues to carry out missile strikes on Ukraine’s civilian and critical infrastructure. Almost half of our energy system is disabled,” Shmyhal said on Friday, according to Reuters.
Russia previously avoided large-scale strikes on energy infrastructure in Ukraine but began such operations in early October after the truck bombing of the Kerch Bridge, which connects the Russian mainland to the Crimean peninsula.
Russian strikes on Ukraine appeared to wane on Saturday and Sunday, but massive damage has been done. Authorities in the capital Kyiv warned Friday that they are preparing for all scenarios, including the “complete shutdown” of the city’s power system.
POLITICO reported last week that Ukraine has warned its Western backers that it may not be able to recover if Russia launches more strikes on its energy infrastructure. The report said Kyiv is worried it might not have enough replacement parts to bring power and heat back online and is looking to the West for assistance.
Ukrainian officials said Saturday that they were starting a voluntary evacuation from the southern city of Kherson, which Ukraine recently recaptured after Russia withdrew from the area. The officials said the evacuations were starting due to the damage to the city’s energy infrastructure.
In an effort to ease concerns, the Ukrainian Energy Ministry said that it has control of the power grid despite the Russian strikes and said there was no need for people to panic.
Unfortunately, it is the only way to finish this war any soon.
Deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Putin is desperate. Russia lost this war months ago. Unfortunately, Putin can’t concede defeat. It may require a new Russian leadership to find the courage to withdraw. That could take a long time.
Funny, bombing of electrical infrastructure is explicitly NOT considered a war crime by, to name a few, the USA, Australia, Canada, Ecuador, and New Zealand. And all the countries listed give general definitions of legitimate targets that could certainly include power plants and the grid.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-ii-icrc-eng.pdf
pages 216 to 222, footnote 23
Electrical generating plants and the electrical grid are simply not considerted to be purely “civilian” targets and thus off limits under international law. No matter how often or how much you, and the Kiev Neo Nazi regime, and its supporters squawk about it.
You are simply wrong.
If the intent of targeting the electrical infrastructure is to make the civilians suffer vs the military, this is a war crime.
Deliberately attacking the electrical grid during the cold months of the war will have second and third order effects, some of which will contribute to a high number of civilians deaths as a byproduct.
Don, Don, Don. Why did the war have to drag out to this point? Remember the negotiations that were bothered by Boris back in April, with our graces? Answer: it has dragged out because we have been feeding this war, testing new (killing) toys in Ukraine. It could end today. Yes, today. If, we allow a cease fire, followed up with negotiation. It is not a war between Ukraine and Russia n the pure sense, it is a war between Russia and the West, with Ukraine used as the playground.
It can end today if Russia pull his troops out but they wont and they will not return the land through any negotiations. They have already stated so.
Would you give up your ancestors and children’s land to Russia if you were Ukrainian?
Edit: if you do so, you will encourage Russia to continue taking land. This behavior will not stop with negotiations.
Nope. All the authorities agree that bombing electrical infrastructure is NOT a war crime. And the bombing country even explicitly WANTING the second and third order effects on civilian morale and well being does not convert it into a war crime. I defy you to cite one authority that ever held a particular bombing of electrical infrastructure to be a war crime. Nations have been boming electrical grids and power plants since the 1930’s, with massive “second and third order” effects, including the death of civilians. And yet, again, AFAICT, such behavior has NEVER been held to constitute a war crime. Please enlighten me if you have actual authority to the contrary.
And, even if you were correct about “intent,” the Foreign Minister of Russia has already said that the intent is to affect the military.
Moreover, the Ukrainian railroad system, which is its chief means of military supply, mostly runs on electricity. Sooo, according to all authorities, that makes the electricity infrastructure fair game.
You are simply wrong.
“Nope. All the authorities agree that bombing electrical infrastructure is NOT a war crime.”
Your argument is that attacking civilian infrastructure is not a war crime. My argument is that it depends on who is being affected which in this case is not the military but civilians.
Here’s a little in depth analysis by experts on my position.
https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2022/10/27/is-attacking-the-electricity-infrastructure-used-by-civilians-always-a-war-crime/
I’ve read that article. The black letter law it cites makes it clear that there is no war crime here. It goes on to cite speculation and opinions of non authoritative persons to muddy the waters. And then says, “You decide!” As if it were a matter of individual taste, like vanilla versus chocolate ice cream. Again, show me a tribunal that actually determined that an attack on electrical facilites is a war crime.
Electricity powers the Ukraine’s railroads. The railroads are the key to the Ukraine’s military logistics. That alone makes the electrical grid a legal target. No matter who or what else is “affected.” End of story.
You are simply wrong.
I don’t understand how you come to the conclusion that Russia lost this war months ago. That’s the kind of ridiculous thinking that keeps this war going and is the reason “aid” packages go through with hardly a whimper from the populace.
Asymmetric wars of national resistance or national liberation are characterized as a series of military defeats culminating in victory when the stronger invader loses the will to fight the indigenous resistance. The outcome is determined early in the war by whether the invaders are perceived as liberators or oppressors by the indigenous population. For example, the US lost the Vietnam War with the Ted Offensive in February 1968 even though the US won every battle it fought agaisnt the North Vietnamese or the Vietcong. The Palestinians haven’t won a battle in 50 years but the Zionists have not been able to defeat them.
For an invader to win an asymmetric war, the invader needs to either (1) achieve a clearly defined limited objective and quickly withdraw to avoid a drawn out war of occupation and attrition [example the US in Iraq 1991 where Bush resissted the temptation to overthrow Saddam or (2) where the invader is seen as a liberator, like the US and British troops in France or (3) where the invader uses tactics of mass murder and terror to destroy the national will to resist, like the allies in WWII.
The fact that the Ukrainians continue to effectively fight back after nine months of invasion shows that the invaders are defeqated. Putin’s invasion has awakened a Ukrainian Obergeist, like the invaders did in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The Russians are caught in a negative feedback loop where any military success they have will only strengthen the Ukrainian resistance.
There isn’t a lot of indigenous resistance in the eastern oblasts. You write as though there has been no attempt by the government of Ukraine (via military violence) to crush efforts aimed at achieving greater autonomy on the part of the ethnic Russian populace in the east over the past decade. As usual, there is one side to posts by people like yourself. It’s intellectually dishonest at best. The analogy with Vietnam is laughable and simple-minded.
Wars, I have read your posts over the years and I have a lot of respect for you. I urge you to separate Putin’s rhetoric from what his army is doing in Ukraine. There has been no de-Nazification. That was a lie. This is not a war to liberate Ukraine. It is rather a war to continue the policy of the Czars to forcibly assimilate and Russify Ukraine. The expansion of NATO is wrong and the US is the greatest oppressor and impediment to human progress of our time. But Putin is using righteous grievances to reassert Russian imperial rule over Ukraine.
I originally supported Putin because he opposed US/NATO imperialism. But Putin’s just grievances do not justify a war that has only hurt Ukrainians, Russians and people throughout the world.
The respect is mutual. We’ve discussed this earlier so no need to go further. We both want peace.
Americans used depleted uranium in time of their aggression against Yugoslavia. Americans always targeted the civilian infrastructure in all their wars of aggression (Iraq, Syria, Libya etc.). US used massively chemical weapons in Vietnam. Millions of civilians died as the result of American aggression. Your hypocrisy is staggering.
…not only, but staggeringly disingenuous, as if the grid isn’t critical to the military in a hundred different ways and no doubt being rationed to give priority to the war. He’s just parroting party propaganda, too lame to bother with.
It was used in Iraq as well.
You sound hysterical. Do you think I support US war crimes? Calm down and think about what I am saying.
A war crime is a war crime even if you support the side that is committing the crime.
I support Ukraine’s fight against the Russian invasion. But I don’t support Ukrainian troops killing Russian POW’s or shelling Zaporizhia. And just because I support Ukraine, I am still skeptical of what the Ukrainian government says. In time of war you can’t trust what any government says. They all lie.
Deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Period.
Just because you support Russia’s war, you do not have to support its war crimes. Grow up.
First off, no one cares what a pseudonymous internet poster who calls himself “Skywalker” “supports” or doesn’t “support.”
Secondly, bombing the electrical grid and power stations is NOT a war crime. And not merely according to the United States.
See here, for example:
The Claims Commission was established to “decide through binding arbitration all claims for loss, damage or injury by one Government against the other” related to the armed conflict and resulting from “violations of international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, or other violations of international law.”
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/71/#:~:text=The%20Claims%20Commission%20was%20established,Conventions%2C%20or%20other%20violations%20of
And what did the Claims Commission say about the bombing of the electricity infrastructure?
117. As a first step, the Commission must decide whether the power plant was an object
that by its nature, location, purpose or use made an effective contribution to military action at
the time it was attacked. The Commission agrees with Ethiopia that electric power stations
are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its
wartime needs of communication, transport and industry so as usually to qualify as military
objectives during armed conflicts.
Can such targets ever be illegal? Yes, but….
The Commission also recognizes that not all such power stations would qualify as military objectives, for example, power stations that are known, or
should be known, to be segregated from a general power grid and are limited to supplying
power for humanitarian purposes, such as medical facilities, or other uses that could have no
effect on the State’s ability to wage war.
Furthermore:
…..the fact that the power station
was of economic importance to Eritrea is evidence that damage to it, in the circumstances
prevailing in late May 2000 when Ethiopia was trying to force Eritrea to agree to end the war,
offered a definite advantage, “The purpose of any military action must always be to
influence the political will of the adversary.”
The evidence does not – and need not –
establish whether the damage to the power station was a factor in Eritrea’s decision to accept
the Cease-Fire Agreement of June 18, 2000. The infliction of economic losses from attacks
against military objectives is a lawful means of achieving a definite military advantage, and
there can be few military advantages more evident than effective pressure to end an armed
conflict that, each day, added to the number of both civilian and military casualties on both
sides of the war. For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority, finds that, in the circumstances prevailing on May 28, 2000, the Hirgigo power station was a military
objective, as defined in Article 52, paragraph 2, of Geneva Protocol I and that Ethiopia’s
aerial bombardment of it was not unlawful. Consequently, this Claim is dismissed on the
merits.
https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/757
When the architects of the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure are in the dockets of an international war crimes tribunal, your comments only reflect our “rules based order” wherein we flout rules but cry when others do what we have done and got off scott free.
Wrong. Simply wrong. It’s a war crime in your head.
Yes, it is, as it was during the eight years the Donbas was shelled by Kiev forces, killing 14,000, leveling infrastructure.
“during the eight years the Donbas was shelled by Kiev, Moscow, and Donbas forces, killing 14,000, leveling infrastructure.”
Fixed, no charge.
non
If you’re going to throw Moscow into that equation, include NATO.
I frankly do not follow your logic. Oonly CNN can with straight face talk of Ukrsinian success.
As for war crimes — be ware of the unwritten war rules. It is always better to achieve goals without fighting, and with minimum possible damage. And when one party is militarily superior, patience is the key — wait to achieve through negotiations what would by fighting come at higher cost. We have already seen the principle applied at least two times.
But if weaker side escallates by resorting to sabotage including civilian objects of high value, like Nord Stream or Kerch Bridge, it results in attacks on previously untouchable — infrastructure.
Ukraine would be by far better off by goving up all the terrirltory east side of Dnyeper. then to continue the conflict. But theit sponsors woul like to see more fighting.. as if playing with toy soldiers. Noise of negotiations is just that — noise. Russian intervention can afford to pause, and afford to wait. It is to their advantage, The desparatiin is tossing a missile into Poland. I did not see any NATO eagernes to run with it. Truth prevented them?
Asymmetric wars of national resistance are sometimes characterized as a series of military defeats culminating in a victory over the oppressor. The decisive victory of the Vietnamese was the February 1968 Tet Offensive. The VC and the North Vietnamese lost every battle with the Americans in Tet and every battle in the war. But they ultimately won the war. Same in Ukraine. The fact that Ukraine is still effectively fighting after nine months is proof that Russia failed to capture the hearts and minds of the indigenous population. Russia is now caught up in a negative feedback loop where Russian military advances only increase Ukrainian resentment and strengthen the resistance. Eventually the Russians will concede that they can’t win.
Vietnam and Ukraine. Keep abusing that chicken, but your analogy is completely inaccurate.
They were only targeting the electrons that the military was going to use.
So the war tribunals for you and your masters will start right after trials for development and use of bio-weapons, attacks on Nordstream pipelines and Crimean bridge?
It’s my understanding that Russia is hitting transformers and other equipment in Ukraine’s energy distribution network rather than targeting the power plants. The damage could therefore be far more devastating than it is.
I assume this gives Russian forces numerous tactical advantages. But the overriding purpose may be to force Zelensky to the negotiating table.
The only thing that will “force” Z to the negotiating table is when we give him permission to do so.
I doubt Z will live that long. Getting to any table is likely to be fatal to him, from his own right wing extremists. They have already credibly threatened him if he tries.
To get Zelennski out oof power more likely. Zelenski is acting weirdly— asking gmfor public negotiations. This may be caused by the fact that Russia does not wish to negotiate with him.
Ine has to remember that Zelenski has no base in the entire country. Those that voted for him — he betrayed. He has rivals and is vulnerable. There are unknowns — such as the actual political strength of Western nationalistss in Kiev. Or are any military men now vying for power.
Why is Ukraine evacuating Kherson and Mykolaevo?
Whether it be Zelensky or someone else, the power failures are likely to add pressure to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table.
Like you, I’m not sure how much say he has in the running of his own country.
Russia evacuated Kherson because it was too vulnerable on the west side of the Dnipro. If Ukraine is moving out of Kherson and Mykolaevo, I’ll bet it is to reinforce its forces in the east and south. Do you have another idea?
There’s unlikely to be a “negotiating table.”
The far more likely outcome is a combination of fait accompli (Russian forces secure the LPR, DPR, and a land corridor to Crimea) and unilateral ceasefire on those conditions, which Zelenskyy will be under heavy pressure to accept — in part because the destruction of infrastructure makes it harder to supply offensive action, and in party because that destruction also creates disadvantages for the civilian population which that population would rather address than continue to put up with as part of the price of continuing the war.
I don’t see that happening. If Kremlin simply wanted to liberate Donbass, there would be no reason to mobilize and getting Russian economy on a war footing. They plan to clean up and liberate the entire country. But they will take their sweet time because quick victory for Russia does not damage Anglo-American empire.
The Kremlin has been trying to “liberate Donbas” since February, and still hasn’t managed it. The purpose of the “partial mobilization” seems to be to get done what the original order of battle failed to get done.
While I discount the source (Institute for the Study of War) as biased, the reports from there are that the Kremlin is doing exactly what I predicted they would do — surging the conscript reservists into Donbas, Luhansk, and eastern Zaporizhzhia (i.e. the land corridor to Crimea) as fast as they can get them trained up and equipped, while the forces in Kherson and western Zaporizhzhia fall back toward what those mobilized troops will try to turn into a unilateral ceasefire line of control.
“Cleaning up and liberating the entire country” is a pipe dream, and was probably never the Kremlin’s real objective in any case.
Are you sure they have been trying? Seems kinda stupid to withdraw troops from Kiev after having it surrounded. They could have ended it back in February. They could have established no fly zone over Ukraine. They could have bombed roads and bridges to prevent flow of weapons. And finally, they could have openly threatened the imperials with nuclear annihilation for support of their terrorist puppet regime. They didn’t. Why?
And yes, clean up is the main objective. Demilitarization and denazification. This was openly declared by Kremlin. They aren’t even utilizing 10% of their military power in this op. Assault on Sakashvli terrorist regime back in 08 was more serious.
“Seems kinda stupid to withdraw troops from Kiev after having it surrounded.”
True, if the objective was to take Kiev.
If the objective was merely to tie down Ukrainian troops defending Kiev so that those troops couldn’t be used in e.g. Donetsk, on the other hand, it makes sense that once certain objectives in Donetsk were achieved or certain to be achieved, they’d use those troops elsewhere instead of keeping them where they weren’t needed.
The fact that something is “openly declared” by a regime doesn’t mean it’s true. Deception as to actual objectives is and always has been part of warfare.
More than nine months into the war, you’re still insisting that the Russians could have done anything you believe they want to do any time they wanted to do it and haven’t done it because they aren’t really trying to do it.
I guess that is one possible explanation, but the two plausible explanations are:
1) They didn’t really want to do what you’re convinced they wanted to do; or
2) They weren’t able to do what you’re convinced they wanted to do.
Since I don’t think Putin is a complete idiot, I tend toward explanation #1 with respect to taking Kiev and imposing regime change (“demilitarization and deNazification”).
Since they’ve f*cked around for nine months without yet managing to secure LPR and DPR, there seems to be at least some of explanation #2 involved as well.
As for why the Russian imperialists haven’t openly threatened the western imperialists with nuclear annihilation, that’s an easy one to figure out: The Russian imperialists want to live.
Ok. So we agree that ending this op or freezing the conflict isn’t their objective. And since you’re convinced that Kremlin isn’t being forward about their intentions, what is the goal? Just sort of muck about, take some territory from so-called ‘Ukraine’ for land bridge to Crimea and go back to selling natural resources to the terrorist empire?
And no, there is very limited danger for Russia to suffer casualties during nuclear conflict with Anglo-American empire. Russia have complete nuclear superiority.
Their goal has seemed reasonably obvious since near the beginning — secure LPR and DPR after eight years of frozen conflict in their proxy war there, and add a land corridor connecting the two to Crimea.
They presumably thought they’d get that done quickly a la Georgia, without such severe repercussions vis a vis energy sales, but that’s probably more down side for the US/EU/NATO terrorist empire than for the Russian terrorist empire, which can make up a lot of the lost sales by pivoting to Asian markets, and create enhanced non-US/EU/NATO-dominated trade and defense connections in the process.
You’re right that there’s very limited danger for the Russian terrorist empire to suffer casualties during nuclear conflict with the US/EU/NATO terrorist empire, but that’s because the Russian imperialists are probably not f*ck-silly enough to get into such a conflict.
I understand your desire to keep it equal but you really can’t compare Russian Empire, USSR or Russian Federation to English Empire and Anglo-American empire. Not in structure, in actions or in government. It’s like comparing apples and turds. Russians don’t start wars. They end them. They have been tolerating Anglo-American terrorism in Mideast, expansion of North American Terrorist Occupation and even occupation of Russian states. They have every reason to nuke the terrorist empire out of existence. They have the capability to do so, but, I agree, not much desire to become same kind of evil as Anglo-American regime.
Considering the reality of geopolitical situation, I really don’t think you believe what you saying. You just want to keep the argument going. Politburo made many mistakes in dealing with Anglo-American terrorists. Today Kremlin (thankfully) isn’t dumb to get into a war without a plan. Putin straight out laughed at a silly suggestion that missile defense in Europe is against Iran. They have no illusions on whom they are dealing with. A cowardly, terrorist infestation in Eurasia. So after Anglo-American invasion of Kiev in 2014, they secured Crimea not only to save people from the terrorist regime and secure their naval ports but also to test resilience of Russian economy. Apparently it wasn’t strong enough because it taken them 8 years to build up. So I think you know that they were planning and counting on reaction from the imperials. You know that Eurasian integration is paramount to all parties involved so this silly argument that Kremlin is simply trying to establish a land bridge to Crimea is absurd.
I don’t have any desire to “keep it equal.”
The only thing I care much about is reality.
“I really don’t think you believe what you saying”
Nationalist/imperialist/chauvinist cultists never believe that disagreement with their delusions is for real.
I don’t see any possibility of Russia pacifying any part of Ukraine outside of Crimea. Nor will the Ukrainians agree to end the war until the Rusisans leave. Zelenskyy is effectively leading the national resistance movement. But Zelenskyy does not define the movement he leads. There may be defacto truces, but like Vietnam, Afghanistan or Palestine, once the national consciousness coaleseces into a national resistance, the movement inevitably breaks the will of the invaders.
It can take years, decades, generations or even centuries. But Russia lost the hearts and minds of the Ukrainian people. The resistance will get stronger until the Russians leave. There will be no land corridor nor permanent occupation of the Donbas, even if the Ukrainian army is defeated and the resistance driven underground. There were three and a half million Ukrainians living in Russia before the war. Millions more now. If the war goes on there will be a ferocious resistance in Russia. The Kerch suspects are mostly Russian citizens. Russians are resisting the draft. The invading troops are fighting a war of conquest and occupation in a foreign country without motivation, leadership or clear objectives.
Russia lost the war for hearts and minds months ago. Every victory the Russians win on the battlefield strengthens the Ukrainian resistance. There won’t be lasting peace in Ukraine until the Russian troops leave.
Cool story, Bro.
“OK boomer.”
Seriously, how do comments like that contribute?
They are not “pacifying.” They are depopulating. Recall that Stalin moved Poland to its West, into what had been Germany, and kept its East. He moved the population, not just the nominal border. This has precedent. And of course Israel is still doing this.
It is deliberate blindness to imagine that Putin can’t keep ground because of who lived on it before the war.
It is already well in progress. 25% of Ukraine’s total prewar population is already internally displaced or refugee into the EU, and that is about 1/3 of the population of the regions not already occupied by Russia (about 20+% of the land and population that is ethnic Russian,who are not counted as displaced or refugee).
Good point Mark! You made me think and do a little research. What worked for Stalin in Galicia won’t work for Putin in Donbas, Zaporizhia or Kherson.
1. In 1939 Poles were a minority (38%) o the population of East Poland. About 60% of the population were indigenous Ukrainians (37%), Belorusians (14.5%) and Jews (8.4%). The Ukrainians were indigenous. The Poles were mostly descendants of settlers from when the Poles and Lithuanians were the overlords of Western Ukraine.
2. More importantly, the Polish National Resistance was allied with and supported the Soviets. Most Poles identified the Nazis as their enemies and saw the Soviets as their allies. There was not a united Polish resistance to the Soviets, like there is in Ukraine to Russia.
The situation in Ukraine today is more closely analogous to the struggle of the Irish against the English or the struggle of the Palestinians against the Zionists. The Ukrainians wlll successfully resist Putin’s campaign to expel themn from their homeland.
Interestingly, the ethnic cleansing campaign you describe refutes Putin’s lie that this invasion is aimed at liberating Ukraine from a Nazi regime. Putin’s war is a war is against the Ukrainian people and the very idea of the Ukrainian nation. He has lost. It is only a matter of time before Russia gets a leadership with the wisdom the withdraw from Ukraine and bargain for self-determination for Crimea.
The figures I used for the 1939 population of Soviet occupied Poland came from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Poland_(1939%E2%80%931945)
I agree there will be no real negotiation.
However, I expect Russia to take far more as its fait accompli. As the war drags on, that will get worse and worse. Anything Russia is forced to take as part of forcing an end, Russia will then try to keep.
What Russia wanted before the war has little to do with what it will keep after war is fought out and leaves them in possession.
This will keep getting worse, because the long term prospects are very bad except in the non-professional imaginations of cheerleaders for war.
I can envision a scenario where the Chernihiv, Poltava, Dnepropetrovsk, and Kharkiv Oblasts remain part of Ukraine…. if Zelensky comes to the table soon. The price will be a revised constitution that declares neutrality and forbids NATO membership.
Unless something changes in a big way, the only “price” the Kremlin can expect to get for anything is that the shooting stops.
You may not realize that we are both saying the same thing.
Yeah, that is my understanding as well. They are reactant in destroying it because they know they will be rebuilding it after clean up of Ukraine is complete.
It gives some advantage to Ukraine as well. I rather see Ukrainian boys doing electrical maintenance than being thrown on Russian guns by the terrorist regime. It at least partially disable influence of terrorist Anglo-American propaganda and a good talking point with Ukrainian “ultra-nationalists”. They want to remove all traces of Soviet past, Russians are helping them 🙂
It’s my understanding that Russia is hitting transformers and other equipment in Ukraine’s energy distribution network rather than targeting the power plants. The damage could therefore be far more devastating than it is.
I assume this gives Russian forces numerous tactical advantages. But the overriding purpose may be to force Zelensky to the negotiating table.
“”Almost half of our energy system is disabled,””
right then. it wasn’t more than 3 days ago that ukraine was targeting their own nuclear power plant simply because russia has been guarding it.
The strikes will be studied by experts for decades.
On the one hand the Soviet Union built Ukraine’s power grid to support a much larger industry than they have today. So it is very sturdy.
On the other hand the strikes are very methodical. The Russians strike and then wait a few days to observe Ukrainian repairs, before they strike again. Alexis Mercouris (from the Duran) on YouTube believes this is done in preparation for the final strike in conjunction with Russia’s winter offensive. It would make no sense to do more missile strikes on a daily basis before then, as Ukraine can repair these, and then Russia would in fact eventually run out of missiles as the media have been saying for six months that they’re about to do.
Russia will however never take down all of Ukraine’s power grid, as some of it is needed for the cooling systems in their nuclear power plants. And unlike Zelensky, Russia refrains from attacking power plants.
Brrrrr.
One of the things learned in the US Strategic Bombing Surveys after WW2 was the importance of targeting key weak points.
It is more efficient to target transformers, than to smash up the whole system. The same number of hits from the same number of weapons will generate more power shortage with the greater precision of targeting these hard-to-replace connections of power plants to grid.
Why don’t they blow up more? Because this is a more effective way to target.