Since the 10th of October, successive showers of missiles – at least seven – have destroyed approximately half of Ukraine’s power grid and left more than 10 million people in the dark – including this columnist. With the approach of winter, which starts in less than a month, the lack of energy can cause many deaths from the cold.
Last week, the Kremlin denied deliberately bombing the neighboring country’s electrical infrastructure. He claimed that the targets were military command and control structures.
But in practice, Moscow’s apparent aim is to sabotage the morale of the civilian population. In theory, the people would turn against the government and demand a peace deal with Russia – Moscow desperately needs a truce to reorganize its forces and try to keep at least part of the annexed territory of Ukraine.
But what I observe in my reports from the cities of the southern battlefront – Kherson, Mykolaiv – and also in the port region of Odesa is that the Kremlin has achieved the opposite result: the population is more resolute in resisting.
In the recently liberated Kherson, for example, I heard countless times from residents that freedom makes up for the lack of light, water and heating.
Blackouts are already part of everyday life for Ukrainians, not just in towns close to the battlefront. In virtually all urban centers in Ukraine today it is common to have electricity, telephone and internet for only a few hours a day.
I experienced this most intensely last Tuesday (22nd), when Odesa, the city where I am based, suffered the worst blow to its power grid. The same happened in Lviv, Zhytomyr, in the capital Kyiv and in countless regions of Ukraine. The country’s four nuclear power stations were disconnected from the grid, something that had not happened for 40 years.
Previously, blackouts did not last more than a day and only a few neighborhoods were without electricity at the same time. This week, the blackout was complete and lasted three days. People rushed to supermarkets to buy water and groceries, there was a shortage of gasoline, communications were down and traffic was chaotic.
The reader may have a vague recollection of what it’s like to walk the streets at night with flashlights. Brazil went through the blackout crisis between 2001 and 2002. It is not a pleasant experience.
In Mykolaiv, I witnessed what it’s like to have no light and also no water. The supply networks that brought water from the Dnipro River to the city were bombed months ago. The water, when available, is brackish and unfit for consumption. People got used to storing it in plastic bottles, practically only to sanitize bathrooms.
In addition, medical facilities are also being deliberately bombed – there have been more than 700 attacks since the invasion began on February 24, according to the World Health Organization. I have been to some that are still in operation and the lack of doctors and nurses is evident.
I also interviewed Kherson citizens who said they saw dozens of people outside hospitals waiting to be treated – some of them were seriously injured. I witnessed crowds begging military ambulances for medicine.
That is, without a doubt, life has become much more difficult. And it will get worse as temperatures drop.
But using air strikes to destroy a country’s civilian infrastructure is unfortunately nothing new in warfare. The practice began in the First War, when Germany first sent zeppelins and bomb-loaded balloons to attack Great Britain and then biplanes.
In World War II, the strategy was intensified. The idea prevailed that air power and the bombing of civilian targets was a practical and cheap way of trying to subdue the enemy and force his surrender.
In practice, it is possible to attack the civilian population directly – by bombing residential areas – or indirectly, through the destruction of electrical infrastructure, water supply networks and transport (Russia uses both ways in Ukraine).
All of this makes life more painful for the population, but it does not generate popular revolts or undermine the resistance of the attacked countries.
It was like this in the wars in Korea, Vietnam and the first invasion of Iraq: the United States bombed and destroyed more than 90% of the electrical networks of its enemies. But the governments did not surrender because of this. So much so that in the second Iraq war, the power grid was left almost intact.
On the other hand, this type of attack helps to destroy the economy of the enemy country. I see the simplest example: in the city of Odesa, there are hundreds of stores closed because of the lack of electricity. Some operate on generators and others on candles. Sales are recorded by hand in notebooks, without the computer systems that are now so common even in small businesses.
But how does a country like Ukraine try to mitigate the effects of attacks on infrastructure? I see two forms in my everyday life: air defenses and repairs on a scale that would be unimaginable in peacetime.
Ukraine started the war with an air defense system based on Soviet-designed S-300 batteries. They are primarily intended for defense against bombing planes, but they are not the ideal weapon against cruise missiles and small drones.
Because of this, the Ukrainians developed a second anti-aircraft system, intended primarily to shoot down Russian missiles. It integrates American NASSAMS, German IRIS-T and Italian Asperge batteries. Drones are also contained with short-range anti-aircraft armor and man-portable missiles such as the American Stinger.
I can testify how important these batteries are for maintaining the mental health of the population. When the air raid alert starts to sound in the city, it’s comforting to know these defenses exist.
But that’s why attacks are never done with one or two missiles. Moscow even launched 90 missiles at once, to saturate the Ukrainian anti-aircraft defense capability. Invariably, some missiles pass through the shield.
Because of this, Ukraine has armies of technicians working around the clock repairing electrical cables, railways and water pipes. Repairs that were done every five years on average have to be carried out every day.
But that’s not enough. The basic power grid, for example, would take around five weeks to repair if the attacks stopped now.
Here I make an observation about contemporary warfare aimed at Brazilian strategists: if we went to war, our country would have virtually no anti-aircraft defenses. We only have short range defense batteries (which the military calls medium range, a matter of nomenclature) to protect specific troops and infrastructure.
Air defense is practically based on Gripen fighters, which are being acquired little by little. And the fighter plane is not the best way to deal with cruise missiles. I have seen here the often unsuccessful efforts of Ukrainian pilots to try to shoot down these missiles.
About the ability of Brazilian companies to repair electrical networks, I prefer not to comment, as the reader has his own experience.
But back to Ukraine: as an emergency measure, the government is asking people who can to leave the country during the winter months. To support those who remain, 4,000 “invincibility” points were created, that is, public buildings where it is possible to find heating, water, supplies and shelters against bombing.
In other words, the combination of attacks on infrastructure and the arrival of winter will be painful, if not lethal for a large part of the population. But Ukraine is not going to surrender because of this.
So why does President Vladimir Putin continue to bet on a strategy that has proved unsuccessful in so many past wars?
One explanation may be the attempt to create new waves of refugees to generate greater migratory pressure in Europe. In theory, this could overthrow governments – although in practice this tendency is not verified: the governments of Italy and the United Kingdom were recently replaced and these countries did not stop supporting Ukraine.
Another possible answer to the question could be simple: revenge by an autocratic ruler who saw his expansionist plans thwarted.
In both cases, attacking the civilian population, directly or indirectly, has a name: war crime.
#Bombing #power #grids #paid #Moscow #insists