Most ways of conducting urban warfare bode very ill for the population. The article seems to conclude they'll use a prolonged siege and artillery/rockets approach, and contrasts with the Western approach which is large-scale aerial bombardment.
Any "gains" fall to the brass, the people who would likely never see real fighting, but readily order battalions of men to "take" a town or city to play the probabilities game of death with the objective of "winning" the objective.
> In 2004 fighting between American forces and insurgents in Fallujah, in Iraq, damaged or destroyed 70% of the city’s buildings. When a coalition including Iraq, America and others liberated Mosul, another Iraqi city, from the Islamic State group in 2016-17, over 10,000 civilians were killed—around 3,200 of them by the coalition—and two-fifths of the civilian population had to flee. It was also lethal for those on the ground: Iraq’s army suffered 10,000 casualties.
I think it's indisputable that the Ukraine war and the 2003 Iraq war are/were completely unjust, and our feelings about the Ukraine war should guide our future policy about other supposedly "just" wars.
At least for me WW II urban warfare is all but synonymous with the Battle for Stalingrad, which is arguably the nastiest battle in human history. Who is romanticising that?
I've read this phrase in Russian years ago, but can't remember where exactly.
To prevent their atrocities from being broadcast they’ll probably prioritise cutting the internet.
You only need one good connection.
https://nypost.com/2022/02/27/elon-musk-activates-starlink-i...
Whether Russia cares about the bad PR it would cause by blowing up international media (including crews from places like CCTV) is another matter.
These reports use unnamed sources, but there are reports that it was almost entirely a PR move to destroy large structures, and that decision makers weren't aware of the presence of Associated Press and Al-Jazeera until after the "knock" bombs were already hitting the roof (it's my understanding that these offices are prominently registered with the IDF in order to prevent such events). https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-idf-only-discov...
> However, he added, the IDF was aware that Hamas was winning the PR war in Jerusalem, in mixed Arab-Jewish cities in Israel and in Lebanon. Moreover, its rocket fire at Israel was escalating. Consequently, he said, both the politicians and senior army officers “were looking for a victory picture.”
> ...
> This source linked the strike on Al-Jalaa to an earlier attack on Hamas’ underground tunnel network, “which began well, but afterward it become clear that it hadn’t succeeded, so they were looking for something to give the public, some victory, even a small one. That’s why the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit was so quick to release pictures and videos of before and after the attack on the building. The IDF didn’t understand the implications of this incident and released the pictures of the building’s ruins as a public relations victory.”
No. You don't like it? Make your own comment. I like the NY Post.