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.

  • Worstdriver@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • sudneo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      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.

      All that said, any airport is a military target in time of war.

      Yeah, an airport for sure, I consider it “infrastructure”.

      • Worstdriver@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • sudneo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          “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.