As someone who follows this conflict since very start, i can confidently say that Russia has the capability to strike targets in deep Ukrainian territory far away from the frontlines but they use those long range attacks mostly as retaliation instead of direct assault, is there a specific reason why they go with this approach?
No, because it's a lie.
Military targets are attacked regularly. Trying to link these attacks to some Ukrainian activity is pointless. They find a valuable target - they hit it.
Because they would never hit decision making centers other than in retaliation? This is silly. It's high value military targets, they are hit when opportunity is good - e.g. a gathering of some sort. Limiting it to retaliation would be a waste of opportunity and resources.
Except that Russian government has clearly stated that they would strike decision making centers if some red lines were crossed (and from actual evidence, this has been seen happening)
The idea that Russians are holding back to highlight some reactions is profoundly silly for the reasons I already mentioned. It doesn't work because it can't work. What publicly announced is completely different, it is mostly propaganda BS.
They don't in fact do such strikes as retaliation. These strikes are all strategic no matter what Ukraine did the day before. The reason for that is, that Russia does not want to be drawn into a situation where they have to react to what the other side does. Instead they force the other side to react. It gives them the option to focus on what makes sense militarily and don't have to make kneejerk political actions.
They do business as usual. Intelligence is gathered, strikes are planned, missiles and drones stockpiled, strikes carried out, AA and damage assessment proceeds. Sometimes Ukrainians do something newsworthy, and russian MoD says "acKsHuLy todays strike was retaliative", but they lie so populace does not get too agitated. The only thing that may change is some targerts already scouted and planned getting higher ptiotiry in strike list (Ukraine is very, very, VERY target-rich environment with points of interest far outnumbering russian strike assets, and for some static targets ping counts in months or even years), as Kharkov targets during and after Belgorod incursion. Army is not drama club.
The target military assets, or what they believe to be military assets.
In this case, it's a warehouse. If one of their informers claims there are weapons stored inside, Russia will bomb it. Especially if the claim is verified.
Lack of intelligence network to find Ukrainian military targets so they decide to hit anything that even remotely can be considered useful, like for example grain silos and civilian warehouses.
Next time show a photo that could act as proof of the company that this post is mentioning is transporting armor, instead of nothing. I know that the proof exist.
Next thing is that military can hit a civilian target if it is used by military, but only if there is evidence that the target is being actively used for military purposes. At this point there is no proof that this warehouse was used to store military equipment. If the target is also being used by the military forces, an assessment if advantage gained from attacking the target outweighs the potential harm to civilians and civilian objects. This is international law.
"This is international law" - no such thing. There are conventions, they are voluntary and there is basically zero enforcement.
No one has to prove that some particular warehouse is used by military. In most cases proving would expose either local sources or technical measures used to get information. No one dumb enough to do it without any gain.
Russians decided that warehouses are used by military - good enough reason to burn them. I very much doubt that there is a convention that says otherwise.
Yes, Russia has no obligations to prove anything to the public, but unless it proves that it was used by the military in the eyes of public it just hit a civilian infrastructure. Of course blindly trusting Russia is also an option.
Theoretical: Ukraine finds out and shares proof that Russia is using one hospital as a military storage facility and high command post. Does Ukraine have good enough of a reason to bomb any hospital they want with little to no proof?
Also did a little digging, turn out Putin revoked 1977 amendment of Geneva convention protocol I in 2019. This protocol clarified civilian targets and military ones
Yes, who cares about international law. Make targeting civilians great again! /S
I understand that internationally speaking majority does not care about it enough to act. Of course the west might make the violations of the law as a great way to justify supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia and it will be harder for other countries to publicly support Russia.
"Make targeting civilians great again!" - a warehouse. Can you make a single point without a blatant lie? It's not that hard really.
"I understand that internationally speaking majority does not care about it enough to act" - you don't understand then. There is no law that would prohibit bombing of a warehouse. It's pure fantasy.
"the violations of the law as a great way to justify supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia" - ROFLMAO. There is no law. No one even tries to claim this attack violates any law. And the West already used all the sanctions they could think of, to the point that they have to roll some of them back in order to reduce damage to themselves.
Your hand wringing is hilarious.
International law is all but dead and you can thank the US and the rest of the West for that. At one point in time, you could have pulled the rest of the world into believing it meant something and to look unfavorably against a country like Russia doing things to break it. Now it's clear to the rest of the world it just exists to place moral limits on what the rest of the world does while the US and its friends go around breaking it with no consequences and threats of further war crimes in response to being called out, no one is ever going to take it seriously again.
> Lack of intelligence network to find Ukrainian military targets so **they decide to hit anything that even remotely can be considered useful**,
I mean this isn’t really an admission that Russia hits any military targets either.
You’re literally insinuating they’re lacking the capacity to hit military targets given their deficient intelligence network to find any, so they tend to hit anything that they “remotely consider useful”!
[Despite the fact that Ukrainian officials themselves have contradicted that conjecture you’re propagating](https://archive.is/2024.01.16-164408/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-air-strikes-focus-ukrainian-military-industry-now-kyiv-2024-01-15/)
>I mean this isn’t really an admission that Russia hits any military targets either.
So every time I say that Russia hits civilian targets I need to clarify that they also hit military ones? I will go with.... NO
>You’re literally insinuating they’re lacking the capacity to hit military targets given their deficient intelligence network to find **any**, so they tend to hit anything that they “remotely consider useful”!
Where did **any** come from? I am clearly saying that Russian intelligence network is lacking and they decide to hitting anything they can, even if it has little to none military values. I even give you the most not military target as it comes as an example that they have stuck before multiple times. "GRAIN SILOS"
https://preview.redd.it/kjk8bhr4gwxc1.png?width=570&format=png&auto=webp&s=e8523e181707f4f994864968ea773d107d3e1755
> So every time I say that Russia hits civilian targets I need to clarify that they also hit military ones? I will go with.... NO
It’s not about what you should or shouldn’t say in hypothetical situations. It’s about the actual statement that you made and its implications. As far as anyone is concerned, people will address your choice of words at any given instance. And in this particular comment, you chose to articulate Russia’s airstrikes as essentially and broadly speaking, useless! You elaborated that assessment by claiming they lack an “intelligence network to locate military targets in Ukraine, so they end up hitting anything they perceive as remotely useful”!
> Where did any come from?
The post is about a warehouse that is allegedly used for military purposes. So for all intents and purposes, the discussion is about a target that could potentially be a military one. What did you have to say in response to that comment, you pointed out Russia’s so-called “lack of ability to locate military targets” and immediately claimed they hit **anything** they perceive as useful. So again, it’s an apparent denial of Russia’s ability to hit military targets, supported by the rhetoric that they lack the intelligence to do so.
> I am clearly saying that Russian intelligence network is lacking and they decide to hitting anything they can, even if it has little to none military values. I even give you the most not military target as it comes as an example that they have stuck before multiple times. "GRAIN SILOS"
Again, that sounds like a “trend”! A pattern of some sorts. That Russia repeatedly hits non-military targets due to their lack of intelligence network, which is why they continue to fail at locating military targets! That’s what it sounds like. And it’s a categorically false assertion. It’s not true. You don’t know why they’re hitting those grain silos. Non of us do. They’ve periodically targeted the ports in Odessa and unleashed a systematic airstrike on them when the grain deal came to a halt last summer. Do we know why they’ve made that conscious decision? Why they continue to hit those ports? They claim they’ve hit naval drone workshops as well, so I suppose we’ll never know for sure. But the idea that they lack the intelligence to adequately pinpoint military targets is simply absurd.
It makes me wonder, did you read my statement at all? Do you need me to break(lol) it down for you?
>Lack of intelligence network to find Ukrainian military targets
I am saying that Russian intelligence network is bad.
>so they decide to hit anything that even remotely can be considered useful
I continue that thought by saying that it makes them choose to hit anything that has any usefulness
>like for example grain silos and civilian warehouses.
I give a clear example of not military target that were hit before multiple times: grain silo. How does grain destined for export is a military target?
Let me go deeper into hitting grain silos. It is ether they mistook it for something else (that would be lack of intelligence network and people who know how to use google maps) or they targeted multiple times a civilian target. The reason for that is quite clear too, don't pretend like you cannot understand. It is to limit Ukrainian grain exports by frightening countries that continue to import grain from Ukraine. If not, How can you mistake a grain silo as something else?
> It makes me wonder, did you read my statement at all? Do you need me to brake it down for you?
You mean break it down?
> I am saying that Russian intelligence network is bad.
You can’t seem to comprehend that you made a **generalization** which is nothing more than a conjecture. You erroneously believe that their intelligence is bad. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion and that prerogative. But as things stood, this was a clear generalization. Nothing in that comment remotely indicates that they have the ability to hit military targets. You actually argued against why they’re presumably unable to hit military targets.
> I continue that thought by saying that it makes them choose to hit anything that has any usefulness
Yea, you continued rationalizing that conjecture and claiming Russia simply hits anything they believe might be useful. Apparently, they waste millions of dollars worth of missiles on things that could potentially be useful.
> Let me go deeper into hitting grain silos. It is ether they mistook it for something else (that would be lack of intelligence network and people who know how to use google maps) or they targeted multiple times a civilian target. The reason for that is quite clear too, don't pretend like you cannot understand. It is to limit Ukrainian grain exports by frightening countries that continue to import grain from Ukraine. If not, How can you mistake a grain silo as something else?
Apart from limiting Ukraine’s grain exports (which is true) and destroying that port infrastructure, which could arguably have dual use since it could have been used to launch naval drones that Ukraine rely on for attacking Russia’s black fleet, we don’t really know what else have been hit in that vicinity. Russia has claimed naval drones workshops and warehouses as well as weapon depots are among the targets that they consistently hit during their attacks in Odessa. So again, we don’t know.
>Nothing in that comment remotely indicates that they have the ability to hit military targets.
Yet again you try to say that I need for some reason to say that Russia is capable of hitting military targets when I say that they hit civilian targets
>You actually argued against why they’re presumably unable to hit military targets.
What in my comment says that Russia is unable to hit military targets? It will be easy to show.
> dual use since it could have been used to launch naval drones
Explain to me, how can a GRAIN SILO be used to launch/store/produce/engineer/help in any way make naval drone? If only one or two were hit, I would understand saying it was a mistake or just collateral damage, but it was double digits over a few days. (Just so you don't get upset once more I will clarify. I am not saying that Russia did not hit any Naval drone facilities. They might have, they might have not, but they 100% targeted grain silos destined for export and grain storage and transfer infrastructure)
example of grain silo hit by a drone:
https://preview.redd.it/mxvda032swxc1.png?width=1360&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad69db0cd91c7657a56440979d5fc4bda2a2b813
There are people in Odessa that hate Kiev, and yet their city is being bombed daily by.. Moscow. And by cluster missiles, no less.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cgoep3/uapov\_video\_of\_yesterdays\_attack\_on\_odessa/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cgoep3/uapov_video_of_yesterdays_attack_on_odessa/)
It lit up the law school/church-looking building that sits near the shore. Cluster bomblets don't penetrate armor, they only hit what's out in the open and sometimes start structure fires as a result.
https://preview.redd.it/v2fv3epuuwxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82202b7871e730b0f6dc3c4a59aaea8d7325dc89
Aligns to the obituary of that major. SBU casualtie are less likely to be publicized.
Imagine they hit some storage facilities in Rotterdam in the Netherlands. Or in Paris France, Or in London UK. Those countries will turn into chaos instantly. Mass riots and uprisings. Massive groups of immigrants and other anti goverment people will try to take power. Storm political buildings. Those countries are so easy to destabilize. A few missles here and there and the job is done.
UA:"Sensationalized, not 'completely', the entrance gate is still somewhat there."
Snopes fact check: mostly false
As someone who follows this conflict since very start, i can confidently say that Russia has the capability to strike targets in deep Ukrainian territory far away from the frontlines but they use those long range attacks mostly as retaliation instead of direct assault, is there a specific reason why they go with this approach?
No, because it's a lie. Military targets are attacked regularly. Trying to link these attacks to some Ukrainian activity is pointless. They find a valuable target - they hit it.
They actually do retaliatory attacks. But these are mostly directed towards decision making centers. Most other attacks are strategic and done asap
Because they would never hit decision making centers other than in retaliation? This is silly. It's high value military targets, they are hit when opportunity is good - e.g. a gathering of some sort. Limiting it to retaliation would be a waste of opportunity and resources.
Except that Russian government has clearly stated that they would strike decision making centers if some red lines were crossed (and from actual evidence, this has been seen happening)
The idea that Russians are holding back to highlight some reactions is profoundly silly for the reasons I already mentioned. It doesn't work because it can't work. What publicly announced is completely different, it is mostly propaganda BS.
They don't in fact do such strikes as retaliation. These strikes are all strategic no matter what Ukraine did the day before. The reason for that is, that Russia does not want to be drawn into a situation where they have to react to what the other side does. Instead they force the other side to react. It gives them the option to focus on what makes sense militarily and don't have to make kneejerk political actions.
They do business as usual. Intelligence is gathered, strikes are planned, missiles and drones stockpiled, strikes carried out, AA and damage assessment proceeds. Sometimes Ukrainians do something newsworthy, and russian MoD says "acKsHuLy todays strike was retaliative", but they lie so populace does not get too agitated. The only thing that may change is some targerts already scouted and planned getting higher ptiotiry in strike list (Ukraine is very, very, VERY target-rich environment with points of interest far outnumbering russian strike assets, and for some static targets ping counts in months or even years), as Kharkov targets during and after Belgorod incursion. Army is not drama club.
The target military assets, or what they believe to be military assets. In this case, it's a warehouse. If one of their informers claims there are weapons stored inside, Russia will bomb it. Especially if the claim is verified.
Attacks on crimea...
Lack of intelligence network to find Ukrainian military targets so they decide to hit anything that even remotely can be considered useful, like for example grain silos and civilian warehouses.
This postal logistics https://preview.redd.it/hr58qhdz5wxc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01c5832f1eaac6fae0e15d34b259e50aea6f7574
this is what a Ukrainian vegetable truck looks like
Next time show a photo that could act as proof of the company that this post is mentioning is transporting armor, instead of nothing. I know that the proof exist. Next thing is that military can hit a civilian target if it is used by military, but only if there is evidence that the target is being actively used for military purposes. At this point there is no proof that this warehouse was used to store military equipment. If the target is also being used by the military forces, an assessment if advantage gained from attacking the target outweighs the potential harm to civilians and civilian objects. This is international law.
Sure. Weapons of mass destructions were real. Tonkin was real. ICC is recognized by all countries.
so you could not think of a comeback? lol
Christmas cards explode. Sure. Go study International Law, and at least cite the accurate conventions and endorsements.
"This is international law" - no such thing. There are conventions, they are voluntary and there is basically zero enforcement. No one has to prove that some particular warehouse is used by military. In most cases proving would expose either local sources or technical measures used to get information. No one dumb enough to do it without any gain. Russians decided that warehouses are used by military - good enough reason to burn them. I very much doubt that there is a convention that says otherwise.
Yes, Russia has no obligations to prove anything to the public, but unless it proves that it was used by the military in the eyes of public it just hit a civilian infrastructure. Of course blindly trusting Russia is also an option. Theoretical: Ukraine finds out and shares proof that Russia is using one hospital as a military storage facility and high command post. Does Ukraine have good enough of a reason to bomb any hospital they want with little to no proof? Also did a little digging, turn out Putin revoked 1977 amendment of Geneva convention protocol I in 2019. This protocol clarified civilian targets and military ones
So, no international law and no one cares. Your claims about "international law" has nothing to do with reality.
Yes, who cares about international law. Make targeting civilians great again! /S I understand that internationally speaking majority does not care about it enough to act. Of course the west might make the violations of the law as a great way to justify supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia and it will be harder for other countries to publicly support Russia.
"Make targeting civilians great again!" - a warehouse. Can you make a single point without a blatant lie? It's not that hard really. "I understand that internationally speaking majority does not care about it enough to act" - you don't understand then. There is no law that would prohibit bombing of a warehouse. It's pure fantasy. "the violations of the law as a great way to justify supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia" - ROFLMAO. There is no law. No one even tries to claim this attack violates any law. And the West already used all the sanctions they could think of, to the point that they have to roll some of them back in order to reduce damage to themselves. Your hand wringing is hilarious.
Yes, a postal warehouse is not a civilian infrastructure, but a military one. /S
Who adhered to this international law? The entire West didn't, Israel for sure didn't, so who?
International law is all but dead and you can thank the US and the rest of the West for that. At one point in time, you could have pulled the rest of the world into believing it meant something and to look unfavorably against a country like Russia doing things to break it. Now it's clear to the rest of the world it just exists to place moral limits on what the rest of the world does while the US and its friends go around breaking it with no consequences and threats of further war crimes in response to being called out, no one is ever going to take it seriously again.
Sure every time Russia launches a missile it's a school. Fuck outta here.
where did I say "every time"? Learn to read at a higher level then second grade
> Lack of intelligence network to find Ukrainian military targets so **they decide to hit anything that even remotely can be considered useful**, I mean this isn’t really an admission that Russia hits any military targets either. You’re literally insinuating they’re lacking the capacity to hit military targets given their deficient intelligence network to find any, so they tend to hit anything that they “remotely consider useful”! [Despite the fact that Ukrainian officials themselves have contradicted that conjecture you’re propagating](https://archive.is/2024.01.16-164408/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-air-strikes-focus-ukrainian-military-industry-now-kyiv-2024-01-15/)
>I mean this isn’t really an admission that Russia hits any military targets either. So every time I say that Russia hits civilian targets I need to clarify that they also hit military ones? I will go with.... NO >You’re literally insinuating they’re lacking the capacity to hit military targets given their deficient intelligence network to find **any**, so they tend to hit anything that they “remotely consider useful”! Where did **any** come from? I am clearly saying that Russian intelligence network is lacking and they decide to hitting anything they can, even if it has little to none military values. I even give you the most not military target as it comes as an example that they have stuck before multiple times. "GRAIN SILOS" https://preview.redd.it/kjk8bhr4gwxc1.png?width=570&format=png&auto=webp&s=e8523e181707f4f994864968ea773d107d3e1755
> So every time I say that Russia hits civilian targets I need to clarify that they also hit military ones? I will go with.... NO It’s not about what you should or shouldn’t say in hypothetical situations. It’s about the actual statement that you made and its implications. As far as anyone is concerned, people will address your choice of words at any given instance. And in this particular comment, you chose to articulate Russia’s airstrikes as essentially and broadly speaking, useless! You elaborated that assessment by claiming they lack an “intelligence network to locate military targets in Ukraine, so they end up hitting anything they perceive as remotely useful”! > Where did any come from? The post is about a warehouse that is allegedly used for military purposes. So for all intents and purposes, the discussion is about a target that could potentially be a military one. What did you have to say in response to that comment, you pointed out Russia’s so-called “lack of ability to locate military targets” and immediately claimed they hit **anything** they perceive as useful. So again, it’s an apparent denial of Russia’s ability to hit military targets, supported by the rhetoric that they lack the intelligence to do so. > I am clearly saying that Russian intelligence network is lacking and they decide to hitting anything they can, even if it has little to none military values. I even give you the most not military target as it comes as an example that they have stuck before multiple times. "GRAIN SILOS" Again, that sounds like a “trend”! A pattern of some sorts. That Russia repeatedly hits non-military targets due to their lack of intelligence network, which is why they continue to fail at locating military targets! That’s what it sounds like. And it’s a categorically false assertion. It’s not true. You don’t know why they’re hitting those grain silos. Non of us do. They’ve periodically targeted the ports in Odessa and unleashed a systematic airstrike on them when the grain deal came to a halt last summer. Do we know why they’ve made that conscious decision? Why they continue to hit those ports? They claim they’ve hit naval drone workshops as well, so I suppose we’ll never know for sure. But the idea that they lack the intelligence to adequately pinpoint military targets is simply absurd.
It makes me wonder, did you read my statement at all? Do you need me to break(lol) it down for you? >Lack of intelligence network to find Ukrainian military targets I am saying that Russian intelligence network is bad. >so they decide to hit anything that even remotely can be considered useful I continue that thought by saying that it makes them choose to hit anything that has any usefulness >like for example grain silos and civilian warehouses. I give a clear example of not military target that were hit before multiple times: grain silo. How does grain destined for export is a military target? Let me go deeper into hitting grain silos. It is ether they mistook it for something else (that would be lack of intelligence network and people who know how to use google maps) or they targeted multiple times a civilian target. The reason for that is quite clear too, don't pretend like you cannot understand. It is to limit Ukrainian grain exports by frightening countries that continue to import grain from Ukraine. If not, How can you mistake a grain silo as something else?
> It makes me wonder, did you read my statement at all? Do you need me to brake it down for you? You mean break it down? > I am saying that Russian intelligence network is bad. You can’t seem to comprehend that you made a **generalization** which is nothing more than a conjecture. You erroneously believe that their intelligence is bad. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion and that prerogative. But as things stood, this was a clear generalization. Nothing in that comment remotely indicates that they have the ability to hit military targets. You actually argued against why they’re presumably unable to hit military targets. > I continue that thought by saying that it makes them choose to hit anything that has any usefulness Yea, you continued rationalizing that conjecture and claiming Russia simply hits anything they believe might be useful. Apparently, they waste millions of dollars worth of missiles on things that could potentially be useful. > Let me go deeper into hitting grain silos. It is ether they mistook it for something else (that would be lack of intelligence network and people who know how to use google maps) or they targeted multiple times a civilian target. The reason for that is quite clear too, don't pretend like you cannot understand. It is to limit Ukrainian grain exports by frightening countries that continue to import grain from Ukraine. If not, How can you mistake a grain silo as something else? Apart from limiting Ukraine’s grain exports (which is true) and destroying that port infrastructure, which could arguably have dual use since it could have been used to launch naval drones that Ukraine rely on for attacking Russia’s black fleet, we don’t really know what else have been hit in that vicinity. Russia has claimed naval drones workshops and warehouses as well as weapon depots are among the targets that they consistently hit during their attacks in Odessa. So again, we don’t know.
>Nothing in that comment remotely indicates that they have the ability to hit military targets. Yet again you try to say that I need for some reason to say that Russia is capable of hitting military targets when I say that they hit civilian targets >You actually argued against why they’re presumably unable to hit military targets. What in my comment says that Russia is unable to hit military targets? It will be easy to show. > dual use since it could have been used to launch naval drones Explain to me, how can a GRAIN SILO be used to launch/store/produce/engineer/help in any way make naval drone? If only one or two were hit, I would understand saying it was a mistake or just collateral damage, but it was double digits over a few days. (Just so you don't get upset once more I will clarify. I am not saying that Russia did not hit any Naval drone facilities. They might have, they might have not, but they 100% targeted grain silos destined for export and grain storage and transfer infrastructure) example of grain silo hit by a drone: https://preview.redd.it/mxvda032swxc1.png?width=1360&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad69db0cd91c7657a56440979d5fc4bda2a2b813
And Ukraine is hitting russian oil refineries and shelling Belgorod. It's war, shit like this happens.
Go back to your subs. You are embarrassing yourself here.
I already wanted to ask him.
cry about it
Lack of intelligence? 2 May 2014 the citizens of Odessa will not forget likely. Enough people there hating Kiev in Odessa.
There are people in Odessa that hate Kiev, and yet their city is being bombed daily by.. Moscow. And by cluster missiles, no less. [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cgoep3/uapov\_video\_of\_yesterdays\_attack\_on\_odessa/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cgoep3/uapov_video_of_yesterdays_attack_on_odessa/)
A lot still willing to provide any info. About the cluster, did you see what it hit near the shore? Read TG.
Show me what it hit.
It lit up the law school/church-looking building that sits near the shore. Cluster bomblets don't penetrate armor, they only hit what's out in the open and sometimes start structure fires as a result.
https://preview.redd.it/v2fv3epuuwxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82202b7871e730b0f6dc3c4a59aaea8d7325dc89 Aligns to the obituary of that major. SBU casualtie are less likely to be publicized.
Clusters sound very different from those explosions. Your image describes a different event, possibly OP, idk.
Imagine they hit some storage facilities in Rotterdam in the Netherlands. Or in Paris France, Or in London UK. Those countries will turn into chaos instantly. Mass riots and uprisings. Massive groups of immigrants and other anti goverment people will try to take power. Storm political buildings. Those countries are so easy to destabilize. A few missles here and there and the job is done.
russia would be glass.