By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Overnight attacks on February 8-9 saw Russian forces target multiple Ukrainian cities with missile and drone strikes. Odesa experienced a large-scale drone attack resulting in damage to residential infrastructure, a fire, a damaged gas pipeline, and at least one fatality. Earlier, Kyiv was targeted by what appeared to be a ballistic missile attack, with explosions heard and air defense systems engaged, though the extent of damage was not immediately clear. These strikes occurred amidst Russia’s ongoing campaign against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, which has severely impacted the national grid and led to widespread power outages, particularly in Kyiv, as the country faces freezing temperatures.
Read the original article here
The grim reality of explosions echoing through Kyiv, a stark reminder of the ongoing conflict, underscores the relentless nature of Russia’s ballistic missile attacks. It’s a chilling sound, one that penetrates the everyday lives of those enduring it, a constant intrusion into a world already grappling with immense hardship. One can only imagine the sheer exhaustion and despair that must permeate such an existence, a feeling of being caught in an unending cycle of violence.
The question that naturally arises, amidst such persistent aggression, is one of reciprocity. Why isn’t Ukraine retaliating with similar force, targeting Russia’s critical infrastructure? The sentiment is palpable: a desire to see Russia experience the same kind of disruption and hardship that has become a daily reality for Ukrainians. The suggestion of striking oil refineries and power plants, of hitting back at the heart of Russia’s ability to wage war, stems from a deep-seated frustration and a yearning for a more even playing field.
The human cost of these attacks is immeasurable, and the daily struggle for basic necessities like electricity is a profound indicator of the devastating impact. When people in a major city like Kyiv are rationing power to mere hours a day, especially during winter, it speaks to a level of suffering that is difficult to fully comprehend. This approach to warfare, characterized by such widespread disruption, indeed feels akin to a genocidal strategy, aiming to break the spirit and the very fabric of Ukrainian society.
The sheer duration of this full-scale invasion is staggering, surpassing even the prolonged conflict between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. This comparison, stark as it is, highlights the strategic thinking behind Russia’s prolonged aggression. The objective appears to be to outlast Ukraine and its Western allies, to erode their resolve through sheer endurance and by fostering a sense of fatigue and disengagement in global powers.
It’s a perplexing observation that certain high-powered, cruise missiles seem to be held in reserve, their purpose for strategic targets remaining a subject of speculation. Some believe these might be reserved for decisive strikes, perhaps to cripple key Russian assets or to create a significant negotiation leverage. The idea of targeting power grids and industrial centers, which has been discussed as a strategic imperative, suggests a calculated approach to warfare, one that aims to inflict maximum disruption.
The absence of decisive action from the West in the past, particularly in 2014, continues to fuel a sense of regret and missed opportunity. The thought lingers: had there been a stronger, more unified response then, perhaps the current situation could have been avoided. This sentiment reflects a broader concern about the effectiveness of current international strategies in dealing with protracted conflicts and the perceived reluctance of major global powers to intervene decisively.
The idea of a massed strike aimed at completely disabling Moscow’s power supply, to force Russia to truly understand the consequences of its actions, is a powerful, albeit extreme, proposition. It represents a desire for a definitive and impactful response, a move away from what some perceive as a passive or hesitant approach. The “or else” argument, the idea of presenting a clear ultimatum backed by overwhelming force, resurfaces as a potential, though controversial, avenue.
It’s also not out of the realm of possibility that some of the initial missile launches were, in fact, tests, designed to fine-tune delivery systems and assess Ukrainian defenses. The notion that Russia might have many partially completed or experimental weapons, rather than fully deployed, battle-ready arsenals, is a plausible scenario, suggesting a more gradual escalation of their offensive capabilities.
The ongoing reliance of European nations on Russian natural gas, even after years of conflict, presents a complex geopolitical dilemma. The financial support these sales provide to the Russian government is undeniable, creating a deeply intertwined economic relationship that complicates efforts to exert pressure. It highlights the intricate web of dependencies that can hinder decisive action in times of international crisis.
There is a strong feeling that this situation is not merely a distant conflict, but a critical issue that requires broader awareness and action. The call to “spread the word” and inform others stems from a conviction that continued inaction or ignorance will allow such aggression to persist. The safety and stability of the Western world, it is argued, are intrinsically linked to the outcome of this conflict.
The sentiment that the world has grown weary of the conflict, that a desire for it to simply end, one way or another, overshadows the need for justice and accountability, is a worrying trend. This tendency to move on, to seek distraction rather than confrontation, plays directly into Russia’s strategy of attrition. The history of appeasement, from Chechnya to Georgia, serves as a somber reminder of the consequences of failing to act decisively against aggression.