> NS2 wasn't an "active" infrastructure, NS1 was also less than active since august.
So? Both are perfectly serviceable, and neither is EOL junk, which is what matters.
Even with your distinction, blowing them us is like the US shooting down a new GPS satellite that just hasn't been officially "turned on" yet, which is pretty much the same loss as shooting down a similar sat that's "active."
Serviceable, yes, but there was no expectation that they will be used again, at least not as long as Putin's regime is in power. It wasn't politically feasible to launch NS2 both because of US pressure and shifts of public opinion caused by the invasion. With NS1 Russia painted itself into a corner by demanding to lift sanctions that somehow prevent them from operating it - there was no way to go back on it without losing face.
It can be argued that this destruction is a loss for Russia, but Putin didn't loose anything.
So? Both are perfectly serviceable, and neither is EOL junk, which is what matters.
Even with your distinction, blowing them us is like the US shooting down a new GPS satellite that just hasn't been officially "turned on" yet, which is pretty much the same loss as shooting down a similar sat that's "active."