Goods on major Russian e-commerce platforms like Wildberries and Ozon have increased in price by up to 30% following extensive Ukrainian drone strikes on logistics facilities.
I can’t think of a more humane way to put civilian domestic pressure towards political change in Russia, can you?
Using the military to put civilian domestic pressure on governments is a war crime. Bombing civilians (which, yes, people got killed and injured in these) is a war crime unless they’re in the way of a legal military target. This isn’t okay when Israel does it, it’s not okay when America does it and it’s definitely not okay when Ukraine does it.
And this is better than, say, schools being targeted to create that pressure to end the war.
Some war crimes are worse than others, yes, but they’re still all war crimes.
Jesus christ this kind of thought is how genocides happen.
You are literally saying if nobody can force me to have a moral, then i’m justified to behave as inhumane as my enemy. This is a line of thinking that a nazi gerarc woukd be proud of. Stay human people, we are getting very close to a world of barbarism.
I’m not accusing you of being an apologist for Russian war crimes even though I could characterize you that way
Why? Because i criticise Ukraine i am necessarely on Russia’s side? I literally said in the comment before that nothing excuses Russia from attacking civilian structures, as much as i think Russia’s governemnt is a criminal for invading Ukraine and causing death and destruction. Is after saying this my opinion still going to be discarded because comes by a putinist in your mind?
I don’t think it’s fair to take the reasoning of my position and say it’s something a “nazi would be proud of”. A Nazi would not be putting this level of thought into the morality of war crimes, and you know this.
I understand i sound harsh, but i think it’s very important ot be clear here: your line of thinking is exactly what allowed the holocaust and other war crimes and crimes agaisnt humanity to happen. if you really think nazis didn’t evaluate their morality in doing what they did, i strongly suggest you to take a deeper look at conflicts and not banalise them as “the good guys with their beautiful morality” “and the bad guys which clearly are the bad guys because they don’t haver any morality”. This is not how conflicts, the world or human beings work. Conflicts have always a cause and who starts them always thinks they are doing for a just cause.
I think the world isn’t black and white in morality, and I think it’s naive to act as though it is. Immoral actions are sometimes warranted, I think. Do you agree with that principle at all? If not, we just have different moral views.
I do agree absolutely there is no black and white, but i’m the one who you accused of being a “russian apologist” becuase i criticise Ukraine’s behaviour in this war. Isn’t that a black and white kind of thinking? It’s important to not circumstanciate principles, but adopt them widely. Otherwise they are just a gimmick to push somebody’s point.
You can’t, in my view, tell victims of war crimes that they can’t respond in any meaningful way when you aren’t willing to enforce the law against the perpetrator. Another context that’s important. You can only morally tell people to let rule of law work when rule of law is being enforced; you can’t tell them to rely on a justice system that is non existent.
We are not discussing about responding in a “meaningful way”, here we are talking about allowing attacks against civilian and civilian infrastructure as a response. Your line of thinking could be used the same way by Al-Qaida (“The americans killed us for decades and nobody cared, so we had to attack them with terrorism because it’s the only efficient way to hit them”), ISIS/Daesh (“Our people have been subject of a western crusade, we answer back with our own”), Hamas and any other reprehensible group that uses terrorism as a form of attack because they feel they have no other way to hit their enemy.
Do you see how dangerous is that way of thinking and in what terrible spiral sends people?
Yeah right, calling your points childish was such a terrible offense in an adult conversation that you are forced to stop the conversation. I’m sure that’s the reason ;)
Okay, before I respond: Your point is that terror bombing is okay when you have been terror bombed already, right? That’s what you’re trying to say? And yes, using bombing “to put civilian domestic pressure towards political change” is the literal definition of terror bombing.
Are you going to be reductive and childish like in your edit rather than use adult conversation?
I mean, I am using adult conversation as you can see. I can do two things at once.
Are you saying it is wrong for an abused slave to murder his master, who has tortured him and killed or sold his family, when he escapes?
No, but killing the master’s children would be. Collapsing governments with their civilian populations in the way you just did is both fallacious and dangerous (Zionists for example love to do this); there are Russians who are attacking Ukraine and Russians who are not and one group cannot be punished for the actions of the other. I’d shed no tears if the attacks targeted the Russian army or the political leadership giving it orders, but attacking civilian infrastructure without a clear military goal cannot be justified as retaliation anymore than getting punched by a man would justify punching his cousin.
It’s really worrying that people cna write stuff like that and not realising there is something wring with it. Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.
I know the Russian army, its political leadership and the people who support it have absolutely no problem with war crimes, so there’s nothing to preach. That doesn’t protect Ukraine from moral scrutiny for committing war crimes.
That’s an argument I can more or less respect (though in the absence of better evidence I disagree with it), but that’s not what they other person is saying. They’re saying that they’re war crimes and that’s okay, which is what I’m taking issue with.
Comparing this to what Isntreal is doing is a biiiiiit of a stretch.
Like I said elsewhere, they’re (very) different scales of the same thing and therefore deserve different amounts of the same kind of condemnation, in the same way slapping a random person in the street and beating them half to death are both assault.
Using the military to put civilian domestic pressure on governments is a war crime. Bombing civilians (which, yes, people got killed and injured in these) is a war crime unless they’re in the way of a legal military target. This isn’t okay when Israel does it, it’s not okay when America does it and it’s definitely not okay when Ukraine does it.
Some war crimes are worse than others, yes, but they’re still all war crimes.
deleted by creator
Jesus christ this kind of thought is how genocides happen. You are literally saying if nobody can force me to have a moral, then i’m justified to behave as inhumane as my enemy. This is a line of thinking that a nazi gerarc woukd be proud of. Stay human people, we are getting very close to a world of barbarism.
deleted by creator
Why? Because i criticise Ukraine i am necessarely on Russia’s side? I literally said in the comment before that nothing excuses Russia from attacking civilian structures, as much as i think Russia’s governemnt is a criminal for invading Ukraine and causing death and destruction. Is after saying this my opinion still going to be discarded because comes by a putinist in your mind?
I understand i sound harsh, but i think it’s very important ot be clear here: your line of thinking is exactly what allowed the holocaust and other war crimes and crimes agaisnt humanity to happen. if you really think nazis didn’t evaluate their morality in doing what they did, i strongly suggest you to take a deeper look at conflicts and not banalise them as “the good guys with their beautiful morality” “and the bad guys which clearly are the bad guys because they don’t haver any morality”. This is not how conflicts, the world or human beings work. Conflicts have always a cause and who starts them always thinks they are doing for a just cause.
I do agree absolutely there is no black and white, but i’m the one who you accused of being a “russian apologist” becuase i criticise Ukraine’s behaviour in this war. Isn’t that a black and white kind of thinking? It’s important to not circumstanciate principles, but adopt them widely. Otherwise they are just a gimmick to push somebody’s point.
We are not discussing about responding in a “meaningful way”, here we are talking about allowing attacks against civilian and civilian infrastructure as a response. Your line of thinking could be used the same way by Al-Qaida (“The americans killed us for decades and nobody cared, so we had to attack them with terrorism because it’s the only efficient way to hit them”), ISIS/Daesh (“Our people have been subject of a western crusade, we answer back with our own”), Hamas and any other reprehensible group that uses terrorism as a form of attack because they feel they have no other way to hit their enemy. Do you see how dangerous is that way of thinking and in what terrible spiral sends people?
deleted by creator
Yeah right, calling your points childish was such a terrible offense in an adult conversation that you are forced to stop the conversation. I’m sure that’s the reason ;)
Okay, before I respond: Your point is that terror bombing is okay when you have been terror bombed already, right? That’s what you’re trying to say? And yes, using bombing “to put civilian domestic pressure towards political change” is the literal definition of terror bombing.
deleted by creator
I mean, I am using adult conversation as you can see. I can do two things at once.
No, but killing the master’s children would be. Collapsing governments with their civilian populations in the way you just did is both fallacious and dangerous (Zionists for example love to do this); there are Russians who are attacking Ukraine and Russians who are not and one group cannot be punished for the actions of the other. I’d shed no tears if the attacks targeted the Russian army or the political leadership giving it orders, but attacking civilian infrastructure without a clear military goal cannot be justified as retaliation anymore than getting punched by a man would justify punching his cousin.
deleted by creator
It’s really worrying that people cna write stuff like that and not realising there is something wring with it. Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.
deleted by creator
Go preach to the russians. Or open a history book for once.
I know the Russian army, its political leadership and the people who support it have absolutely no problem with war crimes, so there’s nothing to preach. That doesn’t protect Ukraine from moral scrutiny for committing war crimes.
Maybe but the warehouse attacks aren’t war crimes, so the point is moot.
That’s an argument I can more or less respect (though in the absence of better evidence I disagree with it), but that’s not what they other person is saying. They’re saying that they’re war crimes and that’s okay, which is what I’m taking issue with.
And warehouse attacks aren’t war crimes, though, so the point is moot.
Comparing this to what Isntreal is doing is a biiiiiit of a stretch.
Israel strikes critical basic supply warehouses (if you can call them warehouses) with food, water and other basic necessities.
Russians can get their stuff from a ton of other places besides Wildberries.
Like I said elsewhere, they’re (very) different scales of the same thing and therefore deserve different amounts of the same kind of condemnation, in the same way slapping a random person in the street and beating them half to death are both assault.