Apparently it does make military sense. For example : nuclear reactors become preferred targets during military conflict and, over the past three decades, have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and campaigns. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plant...

Power plants were also a target of American bombers on the opening night of 1991 gulf war.

And in medieval times, there were dead bodies with diseases thrown over the wall with catapults. Maybe we should try this next on Russians? Or maybe bomb their power plants, if all is permitted?

Oh, and whatabout...

These whataboutisms are tiresome and off topic.

"whataboutism" is the stupidest way I see people avoid engaging actual debates .

> Putin's terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructure make no military sense.

(Points out that there's plenty of military precedent for this, aside from it being an obvious tactic)

> WHATABOUTISM!

maybe you can see how this behavior ruins discourse and guarantees you get dumber over time, but I doubt it.

Nuclear reactors become preferred targets during military conflict and, over the past three decades, have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and campaigns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plant...

So yes, power plants are probable targets in war.

Of course it makes military sense. Attacking supply lines and civilian infrastructure is one of the oldest military tactics that exist.

The line of argument against that is obviously "but Hitler tried it in Britain and it didn't work", but for the majority of history it did work.

When electricity is disabled, civilian life takes a massive hit. As the OP shows in his post, modern cities don't work all that well without electricity. And remember: Food for the soldiers, heating in their army base, etc, all run on it. So with winter approaching it will most likely be very uncomfortable, as the heating requirements are obviously magnified.

Of course, there is an option to mitigate it: oil/gas/coal. Where will the civil society get this oil/gas? Fossil fuels are probably the one thing that NATO cannot supply this winter(remember that Ukraine was until recently exporting energy to Europe, namely Poland), given how horrible the markets are in general. And remember that any oil that is used to heat something could have been used to fuel a tank.

To summarize, there are very real reasons to bomb civilian infrastructure for a military goal. The civilian society is the one that supports the war effort and provides the army with a lot of stuff they need to fight, and in the modern world civilian society needs electricity to run. Given that Putin is now resorting to such tactics, the next step for him would be openly bombing electricity lines and railroads.

NATO has to take these attacks very seriously, in a military context. Don't know how they will do it but they need to figure out how to get Ukraine electricity this winter.

However Russia's troops probably rely on Ukrainian electricity in their temporary bases. Without it they have to bring even more fuel with them, especially in the winter, creating new logistic problems. On the other hand most of Ukraine's trains are electric, so moving war machinery and industrial supplies will become more difficult for Ukraine. Yet if Ukraine can't use the rails they will likely damage them to keep Russia from using them, which again will create logistic problems for Russia. Seems like both sides are harmed by cutting electricity. An obvious response will be to cut power to Crimea and other occupied territories as well.