[ein0p]

The hypothetical war in Europe would not be fought the same way it is fought in Eastern Ukraine, where anywhere between 30-60% of inhabitants are ethnically Russian, depending on locale, and Russia goes out of its way to not just methodically flatten things the way Israel flattened Palestine, which, by the way, is something they can do given their near endless supply of guided bombs. That's why you only have ~23K civilian casualties there after 3 years of war, about half of them attributable to Ukrainian strikes. Absolutely nobody in Moscow would care about collateral damage in e.g. Warsaw or Berlin. Nor for that matter anyone in Warsaw or Berlin would care about collateral damage in Moscow. So if this war were to actually break out, it'd spin out of control within weeks, and end with a full nuclear exchange, decimating Russia, and completely destroying Europe, which is much more densely populated.

[int_19h]

Have you seen what Mariupol looked like right after it was taken? Or what Bakhmut looks like today?

The reason why Russia doesn't do this to Ukraine as a whole is because it is fighting this war with the ultimate goal of occupying and annexing Ukraine, so why would it destroy valuable resources like infrastructure and people needed to maintain it unless it serves some other goal? OTOH when it does serve some other goal (e.g. actually advancing the frontline), they have zero qualms about doing the same exact thing Israel does. I mean, Russia doesn't care all that much about lives of its own soldiers, given the kinds of tactics routinely used.

How Europe would be treated would similarly depend on what the goals of the war from Russian perspective would be.

[ein0p]

You don't understand - that was the _minimal_ amount of damage typically inflicted in urban warfare of this intensity. Mariupol itself wasn't even carpet bombed because there were a lot of locals hiding in the basements. Nor was Bakhmut, for largely the same reason. Look at what we did in Mosul or Raqqa to see how we'd approach this. Flatten first, then move in. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/war-torn-...

[int_19h]

The point is that Russia was entirely willing to engage in urban warfare of this intensity regardless of what it does to civilians. And just so that we're clear about what intensity that is, Mariupol has seen a larger percentage of buildings destroyed than Stalingrad did back in WW2.

Carpet bombing is tricky when your planes get blown out of the sky on a regular basis and your industry can't replace them as easily as it can replace artillery shells. That's the main reason why they're using glide bombs and missiles instead.

Oh, and you don't need to look at Mosul or Raqqa to see other examples, either. Grozny, in either the first or the second Chechen war, is a nice illustration of how Russia fight wars.

[karp773]

This is an outrageously blatant lie. Of course, Russia is trying its best to damage as much civil infrastructure as it can.

A quote: "The latest available assessment by the World Bank, European Commission, United Nations and Ukrainian government found that direct war damage in Ukraine had reached $152 billion as of December, 2023, with housing, transport, commerce and industry, energy and agriculture the worst-affected sectors." [1] By now, it should be over 200 billion.

The reasons why Russia failed to cause more damage have nothing to do with demoraphics, good will, or anything like that. After all, Russia sent to death hundreds of thousands of ITS OWN citizens. Had it cared about russian lives as much as you are trying to whitewash here, it would not have been fighting this war to begin with.

The real reasons why Russia has not caused more damage or killed more civilians, are, first, it has failed to achieve air superiority. Second, Ukraine, with the help of its allies, was able to set up more less effective air defense against missiles and drones.

"Nearly 12,000 missiles have been launched against Ukraine by Russia since this full-scale conflict started.

Some 80% of those have been intercepted by Ukraine." [2]

The number of drones must be comparable or higher.

The limited number of civilian casualties is easily explained by the number of refugees from Ukraine which is in the millions. Its definity not because Russia did not try too hard.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-russias-invasion-h...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c20726y20kvt

[aguaviva]

~23K civilian casualties there after 3 years of war, about half of them attributable to Ukrainian strikes.

What is your basis for this belief?

[ein0p]

UN data, OHCHR. The only somewhat independent source of data available. 12K killed, 26.9K injured. "Injured" is not broken down by significant or not. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293492/ukraine-war-casu....

This is an unprecedentely low civilian casualty count for a conflict of this intensity and duration. Such high ratio of military to civilian casualties has not been observed since WW1.

[rat87]

That's only civilian casualties that have been confirmed. The vast majority of casualties are on the frontlines or in territory controlled by Russia