Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has warned that it was “inevitable” that “war” would come to Russia after authorities there were forced to temporarily close a busy Moscow airport following an overnight drone attack on the capital.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has warned that it was “inevitable” that “war” would come to Russia after authorities there were forced to temporarily close a busy Moscow airport following an overnight drone attack on the capital.
Honestly, I don’t get the point of calling a small attack like this on a civilian target a victory. I understand bridges and other infrastructure with military value, military targets in general etc., but this is a basically random building. The fact that the ministry owned it seemes a very stretched motivation, not to talk about “several ministries have offices in this district”… I mean, it’s Moscow city, like the city of London, it’s basically just offices.
I feel like we should not cross the line where we justify attacks on civilians, and let Russia be the only one committing war crimes by doing that (and hopefully paying the price).
There has never been an airport without military value. Because of this, they are often the first assets that are attacked or seized when besieging a city.
Completely agree, and in fact I mentioned myself that attacks on infrastructures from my PoV would be justified, as they have military value.
Why should Ukraine be Jesus? Always being hit and strictly hitting back only within their borders. Makes no sense. Russia destroyed airports, dams, energy plants, schools and hospitals for more than a year. A drone attack in an airport in Moscow is more than justified at this point.
Wake up Russians, don’t want war then stop it now while you can.
It is not an airport, it is a building “near” an airport. I said myself that I would understand attacks on infrastructure as this is used to support the war efforts.
Also, the reason I guess is because attacks on civilian targets give by definition no military advantages whatsoever in the war.
“Waking-up” the population seems to be a potential reason, but then again why not doing it while attacking actual military targets? And this whole argument is anyway debatable as I doubt you can own the spin of the news when all the information is anyway in the hands of the government, which means that what the actual effect on the population will be is not under your control.
From what I’ve seen so far, I’m willing to give Ukraine the benefit of the doubt here. They were so far very much focussed on military targets. Even in this case they seem to be attacking office buildings night time when they’re presumably empty. This looks like an effort was made to minimize civilian casualties. And if we trust russia, we don’t know what the targets were, because they claim they intercepted all of the drones.
Russia is attacking apartment blocks during night and shopping centres daytime for over a year now. They are aiming to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible it seems.
So much for facts. Now what military purpose could these drone attacks have? To me it seems like one expected outcome is to force russia to move some of its air defence back to Moscow. So far russia felt safe enough within its own borders to the point where they used their S300 systems in ground attack mode to terrorize Ukrainian cities. Due to the nature of these AA rockets, these were also hard to intercept. So the only defence from these might be to force russia to actually start using them for their intended purpose. It seems that in some way Ukraine already tried this approach when they attacked military bases deep in the russian territory, but in those cases russia just moved strategic bombers further away and continues to lob missiles from there. Also military base is much smaller than Moscow and likely already had some AA defence present there.
Yeah, I think the benefit of the doubt on the target is in order, but this still does not changes much in terms of what people find justifiable in the political discourse.
I also think that saying that attacking civilian targets has military value by forcing the relocation of defense is a slippery slope, to be honest. This seems to be automatically would justify any civilian attack during a war, don’t you think? Like if for a second you wear the shoes of a Russian military, attacking civilians in Lviv becomes reasonable, not a war crime, to spread the air defense of Ukraine thin. It seems tautological to me, at least.
I don’t think there’s much evidence that Ukraine targeted civilians. Previously they managed to hit office building where presumably the infamous unit 74455 (aka Sandworm unit that was behind many cyber attacks on Ukraine including the multiple power grid attacks) had its offices. So I wouldn’t assume they are hitting civilian targets. They are hitting goverment offices that are closely tied to military or are directly part of russian military. And even then the attacks are done at a time when personnel is not present.
So to me it looks like they might be hitting targets that are military in nature if maybe less important overall with the added bonus of forcing russia’s hand in terms if AA equipment use.
I agree that hitting civilian targets to force russia to relocate AA hardware would be very slippery slope and in my opinion unacceptable, but I don’t see Ukraine doing this. And honestly I don’t think it would be good strategy anyways, russia is perfectly fine with sacrificing their citizens, they would at best do some minimal effort if not outright just ignore it. So actually hitting military apparatus instead is much smarter choice for Ukraine.
No no, I was not claiming that this happened (many attacks on civilians), I was more discussion on the general principle of doing so and what the reaction is from people.
Even in this case, it seems that the building might not have been the target, which is fair enough, but I think it’s still interesting to observe the reaction of people commenting these facts. There are a few examples already in this thread, and the idea is “everything is a fair target because Ukraine has the moral high-ground”. This allows to move the conversation from the very few attacks that Ukraine did on Russian soil to the more abstract discussion of “what do we think it’s acceptable”.
I agree with you (including the fact that Russia seems perfectly content of having its population die), and I would add that potential attacks on civilian targets could even backfire by making Ukraine lose some of the support from the West which in turns means less weapons.
Yeah, it would be unwise thing to do for sure. (on top of being immoral) I believe there’s some serious effort by Ukrainian government to actually prevent this.
When you think about it, it’s not like Ukraine is some uniform body, there is a lot of groups with lot of interests. Quite frankly also a lot of broken people that just saw one too many of their relatives dying under russian rocket barrage…
So it’s almost a miracle that there isn’t some sort of nasty bomb attack IRA style somewhere in russia on weekly basis. And if something like that eventually happens, it would hardly be surprising. For me that’s one of the contexts for Zelensky’s quote in the article. You just can’t shell civilians on daily basis for a year and expect to not reap some revenge. It might not be government doing this, just a bunch of people that had enough. And as much as you’d like to stay on the moral high ground, I wouldn’t blame these people one bit.
I really hope it does not happen for Ukraine’s sake, but at the same time I would understand if it did.
And I would definitely not expect them to make balanced judgement calls with morale and humanity in mind, of course.
Yeah, I think those are two very distinct concepts in fact. I have this kind of conversations on a weekly basis, where I end up usually disagreeing at some point with my fiancee (who is Ukrainian) about certain topics. I do understand of course that the hatred is real and justified. These analysis are of course a privilege for people who can do them with a certain level of detachment.
deleted by creator
The other side committing war crimes does not make it ok to commit them themselves. The day Ukraine starts targetting civillians is the day we should stop all support. But I dont think it will come to that. An airport has military value so I believe that is the reason. It would be different if they start targettint air planes or residential buildings
I’ll never put invader and invaded on the same plate, ever. I find dangerous to even suggest it. A war is not fair and it’s not pretty by definition, Russia started it and can stop it at any moment. Enough said.
Russia can stop it. Not the russian people. No side, ever, should be allowed to target civillians. It is not a random bakers fault a russian nazi bombs a building. The moment Ukraine targets civillian buildings they should lose all international support.
With that mentality the Second World War would be a very different story.
That type of “same-as” fallaciousness does not work among a generation that knows better and you’ll find no quarter here with it. Russia is NEVER going to be the victim in this and nothing Ukraine does will EVER be morally equivalent simply because Russia is the aggressor slinging around nuclear threats to try to commit genocide. Drones attacking some buildings will never be that.
Ukraine could (and probably should) flat-out invade Russia and they still will always hold the moral high ground simply because of the circumstances.
That’s a very childish stance, it’s the same logic as “but he hit me first”. Because by that logic undivided Jammu and Kashmir is wholly Indian as it was invaded twice(several times but mostly ended in stalemates) and land was seized through military conquest. Theoretically it would justify Indian attrocities on civilians but the western community never sees it that way ( nor should it)
No one here is trying to write a treatise on how nations should interact. India is it’s own story, don’t muddle waters by slinging random and unrelated “but-what-abouts” into the discussion.
“But he hit me first” is considered childish because children are supposed to go to adults with problems like that rather attempt to resolve conflicts themselves through violence. In this situation there it’s no analog to adults who can step in and resolve the situation, so your analogy is a bad one. People have a right to defend themselves using measures proportional to what’s used against them, and thanks to Russian’s actions do far, there’s basically no response at Ukraine’s disposal that would be disproportionate.
I don’t care if it’s childish or not, it’s true, and your consistency and integrity matter whether you like it or not. “He hit me first” is the most important factor in these calculations because circumstances are what makes us human, and callously dismissing them in the name of a perverse way of thinking that only leads to disaster to victims and enables abusers like Russia is, to put it mildly, what some dumbass Karen would do when she’s tired of dealing with her kid fighting at school every day and doesn’t actually give a shit about her own kid’s well-being.
You sound like some tired and angry soccer mom who never wanted to have kids in the first place and is only thinking about their cats and wine.
Ok, then let me ask you a bit more philosophical question. Is it okay to execute a murderer? Do you truly belive in the concept of " an eye for an eye"? Similarly do you think being wronged justifies you abandoning your morality?
Dude, it’s war.
It’s not philosophical. It’s survival.
Is that murderer actively trying to kill you when you defend yourself and they wind up dead? Then yes, absolutely.
Or are they handcuffed and sitting in jail no longer a threat to anyone? Now you can start asking if it’s justified.
I don’t think this is about an eye for an eye and I think you are erroneously framing it as such.
Who the fuck are you to dictate to me what my morality is?
Do you not get that other people think differently than you and that we don’t view moraity as purity? That we understand that morality is entirely different from and means more than what you think it does?
Here, let me fix that for you:
Because that is what morality is for you: nothing but pride, whereas people like me care about reducing suffering in the world and a better outcome for everyone.
Calm down, I’m a random no one on the internet. It’s nessasary to play the devil’s advocate in order to spark conversation
We’re talking about self defense. Executing someone who is no longer a threat is not analogous. Do you have any arguments that aren’t false analogies?
This is exactly the kind of moral stance I personally disagree with. Following it you end up justifying 9/11 and with it you justify all the civilian deaths in Afghanistan, and with that the terrorist attacks all over the west and so on and so on.
In my personal opinion, the moment you subordinate the principle to contingencies, you end up in a very dark place. That’s why it is important to stick to the principle, period. No comparisons, no balance, no measuring.
But again, this is my opinion.
And look at what the U.S. did in Iraq, including slinging around nuclear threats, and you find they were indeed justified in trying to take down who were in their eyes the western beast that did nothing but use and abuse them for politics and oil. Because they kind of were justified, and we did bring it upon ourselves.
Central and South America could fucking invade and they’d be justified over what the CIA did to them.
Hell, Muslim countries could invade China to save the Uyghers from actual genocide by that logic and I’d agree to it.
I do not pretend the U.S. is any better or beyond reproach or any other country. I just accept that being a nuclear bully has consequences.
Principles are based on real world circumstances and to argue we must ignore them just to make you happy is to completely oppose morality and fundamentally misses the point of what morality is all about. You don’t believe in principle, you believe in forcing innocent people to suffer for your feelings and sensibilities, which is all deontological thinking ever really accomplishes. This is why we embrace consequentialism, which founds principles in real world circumstances and considerations, and properly defines morality as an institution meant to benefit such, not your fantasies.
Come on back to the real world now
And I disagree, in the sense that I don’t think killing civilians is an acceptable retaliation, even though I perfectly understand that retaliation itself might be justified.
The matter is straightforward for me: certain things are banned (Geneva convention), and that’s the end of it. This kind of retaliation doesn’t even guarantee any military advantage, so it’s not like fighting respecting those basic principles means having to fight with hands tied. If one (Russia, US, anybody) violates these principles, should be held accountable.
The moment you start measuring who is right in doing a war crime and who is wrong, is the moment you cancel the concept of war crime, which instead I think is a hard lesson history thought us.
You’re drawing a dangerous false equivalency between the invaders and the invaded and because of it, you’re not getting your message across. You may not care, but the rest of the world does, and the others in the thread clearly do feel that people like you complaining about the drone attacks unfairly burdens Ukraine because it limits their options in the face of genocide. They view the drone attacks as necessary, possibly as part of a larger plan to invade Russia, and you’re not adequately explaining why it’s unnecessary and unhelpful.
In principle, you are asking Ukraine to accept genocide rather than do things that, in these circumstances, are normal acts of war – drone attacks on civilians has been a thing for over a decade now and is simply never going to go away no matter how much you want it to – because ultimately, the situation boils down to a choice between launching drone attacks and accepting genocide, and if we accept your way of thinking, we’d have to accept the genocide. Is that really what you want?
Self-defense is a human right and a moral principle that the others stand for that you’re clearly not respecting, yet you speak of principle. Why should your principles prevail over it? Why should innocent people have to die to satisfy you?
I don’t really think you’ve thought this through
I am not drawing any equivalency. There is an enormous, incommensurable quantitative difference between Russia and Ukraine when it comes to civilian attacks. This does not mean that taking a single episode we need to deny the qualitative similarity. This does not make things equal, but I think I could still disapprove Ukraine kidnapping 1 child from Russia even if Russia kidnapped thousands of them from Ukraine. This wouldn’t be making any equivalence.
Regarding the next part, I am not asking Ukraine anything, let alone to accept genocide. Really there is nothing in between “complete surrender” and “attacks on civilians” in your own perspective?
I also don’t think it is necessary to explain why attacking civilians does not help winning a war. This topic was discussed and settled already more than 50 years ago. In case, it would be responsibility of those who feel this kind of attack is necessary to understand how they can help winning the war. My argument is that 1. Civilians are not part of the conflict by definition, therefore there is no military strategical advantage in killing them, and 2. Killing civilians is forbidden by the Geneva convention, which also means that can backfire by making Ukraine lose some of the support from western countries, which possibly means less weapons.
I am also not against drone attacks, nor against attacks on Russian soil, I am against targeting civilians with those. I don’t think the choice is simply between drone attack on civilians and accepting genocide, if you think otherwise I am keen to know why.
The concept of self-defense in this context only applies if you identify the aggressor (Russia) with the whole population, which I don’t. I believe that civilians are not a reasonable military target, and I am honestly flabbergasted that there is a need to discuss something like this is 2023.
Well, by taking that kind of stance you’re enabling Russia to do whatever it wants including outright genocide against civilians, so opposing the drone attacks on those grounds is nonsensical and ill-thought-out. And irrelevant, anyway, because civilians are going to die regardless of our stances and there are bigger, more serious issues at stake. Like, you know, nuclear war and billions of citizens dying if Ukraine isn’t allowed to take Putin out like they’re apparently hankering for.
“Certain things are banned and that’s the end of it” doesn’t work on me. There’s never an end. There’s always gonna be a debate. And if you truly felt that way, you’d support everything possible to stop Russia because they are the ones threatening the world with nuclear annihilation, and by your stance, so are you.
You don’t actually give a shit about human life with that reductive way of thinking you want us to adopt. You’re hurting it far worse than some piddling drone attack on some airport.
Nowhere in the history of ever is anyone doing this by unilaterally supporting Ukraine. Morality does not work like that and morality means more than that. This is exactly why we judge the morality of a situation based on its real-world circumstances, and why we reject deontology as the immoral, corrupt insanity that it is, because of how it reduces and strips any real meaning from any real situation it’s applied to. This is about other people and life on this planet, not your feelings.
I am not enabling anything by condemning the general idea of attacking civilians. If you think this is not the case, you should at least explaining what this enablement looks like in practice. It’s not sufficient to say “you enable” to have an argument.
There is nothing that attacking civilians will achieve in terms of winning the war, so I find your argument completely invalid. That is, unless anything can be justified for an abstract “greater good”.
There is literally no debate on what is banned by the Geneva convention, what debate you want to have? You need to discuss whether killing innocent civilians, or torturing war prisoners is justified or not? Please, make your argument, but you are at least half a century late.
You keep using this sneaky argument according to which anything can help win the war, therefore everything is justified. I am sorry, I find it invalid. Attacking babushka in Taganrog while she goes buying groceries I don’t think helps winning the war. Dissecting alive war prisoners (totally made-up example) wouldn’t help that either. If you think a certain attack on civilians is functional to win the war and “avoid nuclear annihilation” you should at least explain why is so. You instead are using this as axiom to create a base for your argument.
I expect anyway your explanation of how, according to your morality and the specific conditions, killing innocent civilians is acceptable. I won’t even bother mentioning the fact that moral evaluations change based on millions of factors and that this can lead to the exact consequences that conventions such as the Geneva convention aimed to leave in history.
We don’t know what the targets were.
Good point. I suppose my point still stands in terms of how people welcome such events, rather than the events themselves. A similar statement could be done for the missile in Taganrog few days ago.
Assuming they were not the intended targets, it still seems that a good chunk of the people participating in the discourse justifies this type of attacks anyway.
Edit: I am keen on hearing the point of views of those who downvote. I am trying to move the conversation forward specifically to hear different perspectives.
I don’t think people want to have a conversation about hypothetical opinions about hypothetical events, I would rather discuss the facts as we know them.
Literally the comment I responded to was making a generic (abstract) statement, so I’d say that you are well within your rights to have the conversations you want, but so are others.
You are the OP in this thread…
Yeah, I got lost in one of the many threads :|
was it really though? Doesnt anybody else wonder who the actual target was?
Yeah, looking at comments seems that it might not have been the target (but others also say that it was because was the property of some ministry). Either way, I guess that we could have the discussion about what is or is not acceptable assuming that it was the target, just to have an hipotetical example.
The only people who know why the target was chosen are probably not hanging out on Lemmy.
But really there’s no reason whatsoever to put restrictions on the smaller weaker country who is being invaded. War is hell. Russian civilians can rise up against Putin if they don’t feel safe in their own country. 100% of this is on Putin.
I disagree. I think that respecting the Geneva convention is a reasonable restriction to impose, and it also does not hinder in any way the ability to win the war, as it specifically protects only people who do not participate in the war.
The Geneva convention is a set of rules created so that during a war actions aren’t taken by either side. They only work if they are followed by both. One side has been targeting civilians since day 1. That rule has been broken so is no longer a concern.
If a nation is using chemical weapons, for example, just yelling about the rules doesn’t change anything. You need to adapt to the new rules for that war, whatever they are. You don’t have the option to be polite in war.
A war crime is a always a war crime. And the people committing war crimes will always be war criminals. Public opinion doesn’t matter. The fact that certain countries don’t prosecute war criminals doesn’t matter. The fact that certain countries try to legitimize war crimes doesn’t matter. A war crime is always a war crime. And a war criminal will always be a war criminal. It really is that sjmple.
Sometimes in war there is a choice between being a war criminal or being annihilated, though. Also, these choices are made by the elite who aren’t playing by the same rules as everyone else. They can’t be tried for war crimes if they win the war, and that’s all that they care about.
Plus like other commentors said, Russia is the one who made the rules this way.
A rule that is not enforced is not a rule.
The enforcement of the rule at a later date will be affected by the outcome of the war. If Ukraine loses the war, who will be held accountable for Putin’s crimes?
The rule will not be enforced, so limiting only the vulnerable, honest side is not a fair application of the rule. It may result in the deaths of many more innocent, vulnerable Ukranians who are the victims in this invasion.
The invader has set the rules with their attacks. Let them suffer the rules they have set.
This is a new perspective I was not aware of. Why would they work only if followed by both sides, considering that affect people outside the conflict and do not grant any military advantages? I don’t think it works like this that once a rule is broken automatically “is no longer a concern”.
Your example doesn’t fit, because you specifically picked one that -while constituting possibly a banned weapon- does grant you military advantages. I am talking about thinks like killing war prisoners, killing or attacking civilians etc., which are the subject of the Geneva convention, AFAIK.
Attacking some civilian targets does have a strategic advantage. First, attacking factories can deny resources. Second, making a population tired and stressed can lead to issues at home that need to be taken care of, which takes manpower and resources. I’m not condoning it, but it does create some strategic value. That’s what the bombings of cities were for during WWII. It was largely about destroying war infrastructure (with hard to aim weapons and poor compared to modern intelligence).
War prisoners also take resources to care for. If they’re dead, they don’t. It’s potentially advantageous to not have them. Again, not condoning it, just stating reality.
The Geneva convention covers many things. It’s a set of guidelines to ensure war doesn’t escalate. There’s some things that are banned just so it’s not confused as another form of attack and things spiral. It only works if both sides of a war agree on the rules though, otherwise why is one side not allowed to use tools their enemy is using?
I think this is an interesting arguments. I would probably debate whether economic (marginal) damages constitute a strategic advantage, but in general I agree that it’s true. Injured people, manpower loss etc. is an overall damage. Maybe I would rephrase in that they don’t translate into immediate military gains, and there are of course negative sides as well (like the loss of image which I think is crucial for Ukraine in particular). I still feel that the benefits mentioned are not that valuable to violate the overall principles, especially because any violation is a step further towards abandoning those principles at all, which I don’t think is anyone interests (not that Russia is respecting any of those anyway, but this can have effects on other wars as well, potentially).
It’s a principle in warfare, and particularly warfare since WWI, that whatever you do in war, can be done TO you with no repercussions. It is why the US has a standing stated policy that they will nuke anyone using an ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) weapon. If you attack with a weapon of mass destruction the reserves the right to nuke you.
Same principle. If you attack civilians you just authorized attacks on YOUR civilians . If you attack non-military targets you just authorized attacks on your non-military targets.
All that said, any airport is a military target in time of war.
Any reference to this principle? This doesn’t sound like a way international right works. I can imagine this can be part of military doctrine, though.
Yeah, an airport for sure, I consider it “infrastructure”.
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: Some obligations under the law of armed conflict are reciprocal in that they are binding on the parties only so long as both sides continue to comply with them. A major violation by one side will release the other side from all further duty to abide by that obligation.
“Some” obligations may perfectly work this way . Not sure I would take a military handbook as a reference for international right (especially from one of the countries that doesn’t even recognize the ICC), but either way, I strongly doubt the meaning is “if they start torturing their prisoners, we should torture ours” or mirroring other war crimes. I am no expert, but I think that the motivation “the enemy did it before us” wouldn’t hold much in the ICC.
You’ve never heard of people responding to rule breaking with rule breaking of their own? Your assertion that it has no military advantage is flat out wrong, this attack has a military advantage. It brings the fight closer to Putin and requires them to divert forces. It also makes the Russian people more likely to revolt against the war.
I did definitely hear about this, but I don’t think I can say I understand it in all situations. Specifically about this, I quote:
As a commentary to the Article 2 of the 4th Geneva convention.
Realistically, Russia seems to be perfectly content in having its own population die. These advantages might be true, but they depend a lot on how Russia reacts to this. As far as Putin is concerned, I am quite sure he has a permanent residence in some bunker somewhere anyway.
I think this is a legitimate opinion, but I think that history showed us over and over that attacked populations tend to unite. I don’t know if you have any particular example in mind.
Ukraine broke Geneva convention rules? How and when exactly?
How is this relevant?
A: But really there’s no reason whatsoever to put restrictions on the smaller weaker country who is being invaded. War is hell.
B: I think there are good reasons to impose the restriction of the Geneva convention on Ukraine, even if is being invaded.
It’s an abstract consideration of the moral legitimacy of an invaded country to act without any restriction (according to OC) or not (according to me). Whether it did break or not the rules of Geneva convention is a completely separate debate. Here the topic is: is it reasonable or not to expect Ukraine, as invaded country, to act within the limits of the Geneva convention?
Say you don’t understand the Geneva convention without saying you don’t understand the Geneva convention.
Karma farming even on Lemmy? Or what is the point of such comments? I am interested about what part I don’t understand, in particular of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
Do you want to apply that to 9/11?
Are you like an anti-historian or are you just trying to be uselessly hyperbolic?
I just find it unpleasant how we’re supposed to hate the Russian people now, as if they’re personally responsible for the war
I mean, that’s just happening in your head, we hate the Russian government and the subset of the Russian people who support it. Hating some rando for being Russian is still wrong.
We don’t know what the targets were.
Anyone that has been following this war properly knows that’s not really true. Donetsk city has been the subject of indiscriminate ukrainian shelling and missiles since the start. These drone attacks against civilians aren’t changing some sort of unbroken streak of not attacking civilians.
Well when you’re 12 lines deep on the white stuff everything makes sense
I genuinely did not understand what you mean
Its likely a reference to Russian propaganda that the Kyiv government is populated with drugged-up nazis as justification for their unprovoked war of aggression.
My response to this argument is that you’re saying we can laugh and cheer as teenagers are pushed into the exploding woodchipper, but the instant someone wearing a suit gets dirt on them everyone needs to stop and reflect on their actions.
I don’t see a danger of Ukraine reaching the level of Russia when it comes to war crimes, we haven’t seen anything close to an izium on the Ukrainian side, and even if we had, it’s a defensive war.
If Ukraine wants to drone strike red square, more power to them, point me at their gofundme.
What are you on about? No one’s advocating for that.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
Then you are an idiot. The clue is in the name “War Crimes”, they are illegal actions no one should be taking. Neither side should be engaging in war crimes, now, we can’t do anything about Russia because it’s Russia, but we can encourage Ukraine not to do it and we should encourage Ukraine not to do it.
But they didn’t hit that did they, they hit random office buildings. Target in civilians was the tactic in world War 2, and it didn’t work. It just galvanises a population against you.
You are arguing a complete strawman, though, as I am not saying any of that.
My argument is that I think attacks on civilians are generally wrong. This is also why war crimes are defined based on what they are, not the context or the motivation behind them. Russian war crimes are appaling, but this - in my opinion - does not justify attacks on Russian civilians. Nobody also talked about same level or any other comparison, only you. I am not even putting on the same level Izyum and a glass office in Moscow, I am discussing the general principle.
The problem is that war propaganda pushes a principle that I simply don’t agree with, which is collective responsibility, from which derives the fact that killing a Russian civilian is not wrong or not as wrong as killing an Ukrainian civilian, because if you hold a Russian passport, automatically you are guilty of genocide.
I don’t understand what is hard or complex or debatable about saying that killing civilians is wrong.
Either Russian conscripts are all evil monsters who willingly want to invade another country, in which case we should be able to do whatever we like to them, or they’re teenagers being forced into a fight against their will (they are conscripts under pain of imprisonment).
I’m willing to give the benefit of nuance to the mobiks, they might be doing horrible things, but it’s not like they chose to take a road trip to Bakhmut, but then I think the rich Russians working in cities to keep the machine running deserve the same nuance.
You can place the limit of personal freedom where you subjectively think it is. Are you free to refuse to participate in a war? In my opinion, generally yes, even if the price to pay is high (jail, retaliation, death). For someone the price to pay might be an argument to say that you are not free, and I think both positions are potentially valid, even though I think nobody can ultimately force you to actually squeeze the trigger.
This said, conscripts have absolutely nothing to do with this discussions, as I consider them part of the military, not civilians (which is what my whole comment was about).
Also, “do what we want with them” is also incorrect, as you can’t do certain things even to enemy soldier, if you subscribe to principles stated in the Geneva convention. And to prevent any objections, I am well aware that Russian have done some unspeakable war crimes even in relation to this (such as the beheadings etc.).
Now, if you start extending the responsibility until those who “keep the machine going” you can reach basically any person on the planet, considering the way global economies are connected. I don’t think this makes civilians a fair target though.