Interesting read. I guess it's self-evident, but not having thought about the topic, the utility of rubble and repurposing semi-destroyed structures, as well as how important snipers are, were new to me. Maybe the importance of snipers makes civilians being handed out guns in Kyiv now seem less futile.
Would be interested to read a basic explainer along these lines on "How to Rebuild a City" -- I guess one divergence from urban planning/development literature would be on how to reuse rubble? Given the many destroyed cities through history including this century which have been at least partially reubilt (perhaps Grozny was first of this century?) I guess there must be plenty written on this topic.
I don’t know about writing or research on the subject but I live in a city in western Poland. In some sense you could say we are still “rebuilding” today. Much of the brick extracted from the rubble was from what I know, used as building material in the 50’s and 60’s. Near to where I live, there is a rectangular hill, some 6-7 stories tall and there is a large park on it. It’s pretty huge. It’s made up of all the rubble that was cleared from the area (which was a large neighborhood that was 99% destroyed during Soviet siege/offensive in 1944). Rebuilding cities after wars takes forever.
A small example would be the main church of Dresden[1], in what was Eastern Germany. Destroyed by the allied bombings of 1945, it was left as rubble[2] in the middle of town all through communist rule. The rebuild was completed in 2005.
Rebuilding entire cities is another thing altogether. And even if there is a new city built where the old one was standing, so much history has been lost.
I read about the Lebanese civil war a few years ago and it was pretty eye opening. Urban warfare seems terrifying from the perspective of the attacker.
If you are in a group and a sniper hits someone that isn't an instant kill, what do you do? Take cover and let them die, or run in the line of fire and try to help or try to find the sniper?
You make it sound like it is intentionally done but if the shooter is far away/has poor accuracy and the soldier has body armor, chances are he will be incapacitated but not killed. After that the question is: is more morally ok to killed the downed soldier or wait for his unit who is still and active aggressor.
Because the hurt suffer a lot. Getting through life missing a leg is not pleasant. Also dozens risk their life saving a down but alive friend, while you will leave the dead until it is safe
"...In September 1942, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Russian Sergeant Yakov Pavlov and his platoon seized a four-story apartment building—later dubbed “Pavlov’s House”—overlooking a large square. The building had long lines of sight from three sides. Pavlov’s men place barbed wire and antipersonnel and antitank mines around the building, smashed and cut holes in walls to create interior walkways, and placed machine-gun firing points in the building’s corners. They would move to the cellar as indirect fire struck the top of the building or to higher floors when German Panzers approached so they could fire antitank rifles down onto the tanks’ vulnerable, thin roofs. Pavlov and his men held the building for fifty-eight days against numerous mechanized and combined arms attacks, causing an unknown number of German vehicle and soldier kills in the process..."
Russians have serious logistical problems
now. There are Twitter videos of some of their tank crews stuck on Ukrainian roads
without fuel and being taunted and asked if they want for a ride back to Russia by Ukrainian passers by.
These cost a million dollars a piece to Americans. I'm not sure how much Russia pays for each Caliber cruise missile, but the (short-range ballistic rather than cruise) Tochka-U is somewhere around $150k.
Also, for what it's worth, Russia used 26 Caliber missiles on a single day in Syria back in 2015.
Russia doesn’t have the same stockpiles of Precision Guided Munitions, they don’t have the same infantry level access to NVGs, they have some high speed high tech gear, but limited amounts compared to Americans.
Stockpiles of munitions are vital, you can’t simply expend infinite numbers, they take time to resupply. At times even American troops were supply constrained on certain missiles.
The point is, Russia has to be selective, especially since Ukrainian AD is still active.
They are having to supply fuel, food and ammunition to 200,000 men over a 500 Km distance in hostile territory. You would need a fantastic logistical operation to be able to support that even in your own country.
"Ukrainian citizen confronts Russian soldiers after tank runs out of fuel"
This is incredibly baffling. How can a tank "get lost and run out of fuel"? The tanks don't have GPS or even a map? They don't have radio connection to some kind of command that know where its tanks are? Like ... how?
I don't even know. This seems like a plausible deniability for desertion or something. "We ran out of fuel, oh well, nothing we can do." Not that I'm complaining, I'd rather get lost and captured than fight for Putin either.
Would be interested to read a basic explainer along these lines on "How to Rebuild a City" -- I guess one divergence from urban planning/development literature would be on how to reuse rubble? Given the many destroyed cities through history including this century which have been at least partially reubilt (perhaps Grozny was first of this century?) I guess there must be plenty written on this topic.