Actually, that kind of destroying is less stupid as it looks. The high-rise buildings are good ones to have a battlefield overview the moment the battle gets closer.
Also, the more civilian buildings are left, the more people will still be there, so the more soldiers are needed to capture the city. Completely destroy the city, and you have hardly any fighting to capture that city, no fighters can hide in the buildings. Posted earlier, were figures of how many soldiers were needed to capture a city and to keep a captured area under control. Those figures go down drastically, when nearly every civilian fled the destroyed city.
Many people here judge the Russian options, based on Western presumptions around "limit the civilian casualties and damage". Though, once you leave those subtilities behind, the Russian approach isn't that stupid to have better chances to "win" the battle. Russia isn't going to fund the repair costs for rebuilding of captured area's. They leave it to the civilians, on their own, so who cares, not the Russians. General living standard is not a key (political) issue in Russia.
Sad, but true, unfortunately
