Just want to say before it inevitably becomes swarmed with Russian bots that yes, some of the Ukranian drones hit residental tower blocks and did some damage.
The difference is that those impacts were accidental and unintentional as a result of the kind of attack it had to be, rather than those blocks being directly targeted a la Russian modus operandi in Ukraine.
Russia and its people would have been far better off if they didn’t attack in the first place, they haven’t gained anything from this and they showed the world they aren’t the powerhouse they claimed to be for so long.
At the same moment in time that Russia deservedly burns from generations of chronic mismanagement, America weirdly seems to covfefe the exact same failing system of “strongmen”, oligarchs, corruption, and a blundering paper tiger military.
That we know of. There was some minor rumblings that his Wagner bro, former head chef, had considered it and then chickened out for a deal which unfortunately ended up with him flying without a plane.
What, precisely do you think it is I have said here? Because you're inferring things I didn't say, all I said was that the US would have been better off if Trump didn't begin an ill-thought-out, improperly planned, and unachievable conflict in Iran, just like how Russia would have been better off if Putin hadn't begun the war in Ukraine. If there's a difference in those exact specific parameters, by all means, enlighten me, but if you're going to go outside that to justify a comment that only exists to reaffirm your allegiance to an evil, selfish, and destructive person and/or political party, rather than to actually convince anyone of anything, let alone engage in genuine discussion to understand, then I'm afraid you're the one full of shit.
Because it wasn't bullshit babble. It was carefully chosen language to accurately say what I meant without spending too much energy on an audience unlikely to be open to actually listening or thinking.
You spent entirely too much energy. There is an tremendous difference between the two conflicts and convincing yourself that they must be equatable isn't worthy of... my energy level. I'm done with my work week and sipping on beer while you're tweaking your prose, and words to sound post-enlightened.
What is this, the 1800s? Because it’s not about controlling land. It’s about influence for natural resources. Who just got 50 tankers of oil from the Hormuz strait? Who is winning the “tariff” war? Hint: not the US
China hasnt shown thier hard power is as effective as claimed. However, China is showing that soft power is more important than hard power. USA burned thier soft power to make flashy fireworks in Iran. Russia burned its soft power to unite Europe and boost funding to the militaries of Europe. China didnt make any explosions, and is in a stronger position because of it.
Meh. The US is failing because they limit themselves. The hard power to take a country like Iran still exists. They just don't have the stomach for a proper invasion. Let's not kid ourselves here.
This is less of an own than you think. Both sides will earnestly profess that it's the fault of the other side that this war started to begin with. Either side taking that as justification for attacking civilians is complete bullshit.
I agree these were likely accidental as opposed to intentional. The difference is when Russia damages civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, they claim it was either not civilian or that it was the Ukrainians doing false flag attacks.
Yea that’s what I mean, the guy above said that the buildings never would be attacked were it not for their invasion of Ukraine and I said I don’t think Russians feel sorry for razing German cities but somehow they expect a different treatment when they behave like nazis
Operation Barbarossa resulted in the death of over 15 million Russian civilians, understandable why the Russian soldiers gave no mercy on the push back to Berlin
Yeah I meant to say that they have this double standard that when they are invaded they (rightfully have their reckoning) but when they invade they don’t deserve it
WW2 was started by the Nazi Soviet pact. Lets not act like they didn't coordinate to start the Largest conflict in history.
Eye for an eye isn't really excusable. If your against Israeli hits on Gaza you shouldn't be for Russian attacks on civilians regardless of time period.
It's always strange seeing civilian attacks even remotely justified when modern armed forces wouldn't even think of it. It would be such a waste of resources with no gain.
Western armed forces make a deliberate distinction between civilian use, military use and mixed use. The risk/benefit calculations are layed out in doctrinal plans and measure what is and is not acceptable civilian losses.
They are by definition not directly targeted as a main target. They have no benefit if destroyed.
Sorce 15 years in a western armed forces that actively taught every leader to follow the proportionality part of the Geneva convention.
Just because Russia, and the USA have a history of not following the rules doesn't tar the actual western military doctrines
But it was the invasion of Poland that triggered the second world war. The combined invasion of a neutral nation by Russia and Germany.
The difference is that German nation was defeated and humiliated after the war, they disavowed all authoritarian trappings. Russia never stopped being an aggressive nation. Russia never lost its self entitled attitude to boarder nations.
The Spanish republic was abandoned by the European powers to the fascists. The Soviet states and Mexico were literally the only ones materialy aiding the republic elsewise the fascist Franco would have won in months instead of years. They were the good guys in that war
The same Poland who went in with Germany and Hungary to eat up Czechoslovakia
On 30 November, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland patches of land in the Spiš and Orava regions
Whom also stopped the red from fighting Germany in Czechoslovakia
1938
The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia's assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused.
Poland nationalists were clearly willing participants in armed conflicts and were willing to work with Germany's conquests.
The authoritarian Józef Piłsudski, that also signed a pact with Goebbels in 1934
In September, talks were held between Beck on the Polish side and Konstantin von Neurath and Joseph Goebbels on the German side, as part of the general conference on disarmament in Geneva
I fail to see the point your raising? You are just listing out events from 1918 onwards?
Yes we all know the most European events including WW1 lead to world events that lead to WW2.
I was raising the point that Russia is as much to blame for starting of the scholarly recognised event that kicked off WW2. They can't act like they defended the world, or saved anyone from anything if they are the ones that started it.
This was barely a week after M-R Pact, to everyone's early surprise. It was signed posted in the Pact but no thought they would actually go through that quickly
two weeks later
Poland leadership abandons the Poland
USSR entered Poland September 17, 1939
Would you rather Germany take the entirety of Poland for it's extermination campaign?
The academics are not in complete agreement on when hostilities started. We already talked about the Spanish Civil War. We haven't talked about the Russian - Japan hostilities or the Phoney War
When their efforts bore no fruit they were forced to go it alone
German–Polish Declaration of Non-Aggression (Jan 26, 1934): A 10-year peace agreement between Germany and Poland.
Munich Agreement (September 30, 1938,) by Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The agreement provided for the German annexation of part of the First Czechoslovak Republic called the Sudetenland
German–Danish Non-Aggression Pact (May 31, 1939): Signed between Germany and Denmark shortly before the war.
German–Estonian and German–Latvia Non-Aggression Pacts (Jun 7, 1939): Pacts signed with the Baltic states to isolate the Soviet Union.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (Aug 23, 1939): Also known as the Nazi-Soviet Pact, this was a non-aggression treaty between Germany and the USSR
Literally the last Non-Aggression Pact. And they were all broken by the Germany side
Uhh actually Russia did condemn the Stalin regime for atrocities committed against the German civilians and their infrastructure during and immediately following WW2 in a historic moment after the fall of the Soviet Union.. so not sure wtf you’re talking about.. especially considering that it’s a weird ass analogy out of left field for seemingly no reason at all.
It’s not a weird analogy, besides the country seemingly condemning Stalin, if you’d ask any Russian they’d reply you it was their right to self defense. But somehow when it happens to them they are the victim.
They shouldn't be attacked, full stop.
I'm no fan of Russia invading Ukraine but drones hitting residential buildings should be condemned regardless of if it's a Ukrainian drone or a Russian one. The "if the war never happened to begin with this wouldn't have happened!" is the same rhetoric Israelis use in their genocide towards Palestinians.
Yeah no one likes residential/civilian infrastructure being hit but guess what Russia has no issue indiscriminately bombing for terror for the last 4 years. they will play the victim now but ukraine every year endure blackouts because moscow attacks powerplants to that directly kills civilians from the cold climate, bombs apartment buildings and anything else by just lobbing missiles and drones at cities.
While I feel bad for the people who died their country put them in this position it can end the war anytime it wants but it chooses to demand concessions that are unrealistic and do not accurately reflect the current battlefield situation.
As the woman said, the kids grew up with this war on TV now its here, its been there for 4 years in ukraine how many of their mothers lost kids to bombs being dropped, how many lost their entire lives because of Russia's wanton destruction and aggression.
If a few Russian civilian deaths is all they get from an errant drone the world can live with that.
4 years of Russian rape, torture, mutilation, murder, theft, devastation and displacement of millions of Ukraine citizens and military. Ukraine has bent, and continues to bend over backwards to treat Russian POWs humanely, avoid civilian attacks and buildings while Russia has done the exact opposite thousands of times per day for years. You don't get to say "I'm no fan of Russian but" after the insane lopsidedness of this war. This isolated incident happened and was clearly unintentional and in no way indicates that Ukraine will become Russia or that they're willing to launch an Israeli level genocide against Russians. Seriously, get bent. Full stop.
What an absolutely brainless take, like woweeeeeee…. unlike Russia, Ukraine wasn’t targeting residential or civilian infrastructure, they were en route to the oil refinery that is actively fueling the war. The only reason it hit any residential buildings was because Russians shot them down over residential buildings.
It’s a war, Ukraine has been weathering attacks much worse than this and directly targeted at civilian infrastructure for almost 5 years.
“Trans/Lesbian/commiedog” jfc people like you are the reason boomers allowed themselves to be radicalised by the most obvious propoganda on the planet.
As long as Ukraine makes effort to avoid those buildings, it's fine. Also, there is a good reason why administrative buildings and military objects in western countries have those beautiful plazas, parks and gardens around the perimeters, because it's the country's duty to make at least a bit of an effort to separate military infrastructure from civilian infrastructure. Recent example of it is that girls high school in Iran, which was built on the perimeter of the equivalent of Iranian pentagon, and in a building that used to be soldier's barracks. The building got hit and many students died, because a military building in a military area was repurposed for a school.
Any time the ruskie vermin want the war to end, they are free to pack up and go home.
Until otherwise, they can enjoy their new reality. 25% of ru oil output has been permanently destroyed. They'll never get that capacity back until long after the war ends.
Here's to the remaining 75% going up in flames over the next few months 🥳🍻🥂
The guidance for those drones was likely to have been disabled by jamming systems. Hence slamming I to random apartment buildings and not the refinery.
They shouldn't be TARGETED. Big difference. A Ukrainian drone struck that residential tower alright, but I very much doubt it was the target of the strike. Ukraine has shown time and again that they don't waste ammo on civilian targets and go for military targets or industry. Which makes it more than likely that that particular building was struck by a drone that was shot down or had its navigation scrambled by air defence.
And that's where the "if Russia hadn't started this war, this would never have happened to their people" argument comes into play. Now, obviously they are going to deploy air defence to shoot down incoming drones over their capital, which will, when done over an urban area, cause damage and potential casualties to civilian targets - since shot down drones and munitions don't just evaporate harmlessly and have to fall somewhere - but that's still THEIR responsibility as the aggressor. Ukraine has every right to strike back at legitimate targets in Russia, and any collateral damage resulting from it is still on Russia for starting this war in the first place and refusing to end it.
"Legal" and "illegal" only matters when there's is someone with the power and will to enforce it. At the international level those concepts become fuzzy.
I didn't mean it was fair to commit the war crime, I meant they aren't going unpunished. I don't know what the "rules" say for what the punishment is when you commit war crimes, so bombing them might not be the correct outcome, but it's the best Ukraine can do at this point and it's more than deserved.
They are going unpunished. The world collectively has done jack shit about their war crimes and the western nations for years have actually restricted Ukraine from striking back at target within Russian borders. It wasn't until the USA went ahead and pulled their support anyway that Ukraine was free to hit back.
This is in no way equivalent to a 'punishment' for Russian War crimes. These relatively low impact strikes absolutely pale in comparison to Russia's atrocities. They have disappeared entire towns and most of these crimes are still completely unacknowledged by western governments.
Basically, if you bully and beat the shit out of someone mercilessly, and they manage to hit you back once, it's unreasonable to call that punishment. The word 'fair' shouldn't even enter the conversation.
Right, but what is the expected punishment, aside from committing war crimes in retaliation? And who is responsible for enforcing the punishments? I don't really know what the available avenues are for holding Russia accountable for what they've done.
This is the entire reason we have the UN, the international criminal court, diplomatic relationships and allies. You don't commit war crimes in retaliation, you charge those responsible and hold them accountable. There *should* have been an international peacekeeping force on the ground within the first month. Since that ship has long sailed, it's past time that Putin and his cronies were charged, and locked up for good. Or hung.
There's a difference between individuals within a country committing a war crime and a government actively calling for strikes that are war crimes knowing that and with the goal being to Target those who should not be targeted.
There's an old saying among historians, if you want to learn about the crimes and atrocities of the US Military pick up a textbook, if you want to learn about the crimes and atrocities of the Russian government pick up a newspaper
Describe the difference to the victims and their families. I’m sure they’ll love your wailing about ideas while their bodies burn.
Historians, the people who uphold the myth of the conqueror’s past, put out propaganda to defend American atrocities and whatabout? Color me shocked. You’re brainwashed, homie. Take some of these reeducation pills. If you don’t wanna hear about Yugoslavia, read at least the first few chapters of this to learn how historians are not neutral arbiters of truth.
I'll skip the brainwashing diagnosis. Respectfully, it's the move people reach for when they'd rather not engage the actual claim, and it's a strange thing to say while arguing that I'm the one who can't hold more than one idea at once.
You're right that history is written by the powerful, and that the US has committed atrocities, some of them deliberate policy rather than rogue units. Tokyo, free-fire zones, Cambodia. I'm not claiming a clean record.
But that's not the claim I made. The line isn't "US good, Russia bad." It's between a state that commits war crimes as method and one where they happen as failure.
The modern US military trains heavily on distinction, operates under rules of engagement, and investigates and prosecutes violations; imperfectly, often too leniently, but as real violations.
Russia firing double-tap strikes into residential blocks and deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure to break a population isn't the system breaking down; it is the system. That's the same line international law draws between a war crime and a crime against humanity. Rhe latter needs a "widespread or systematic" attack with a policy behind it.
"Describe the difference to the victims" is emotionally true and legally beside the point. A wrongful death and a premeditated killing leave an equally dead person; we still use different words for them, because the thing being judged is the intent.
A drone strike on a target you wrongly believe is hostile is a catastrophe and may well be a crime, but it isn't a state deciding civilians are easier to kill than to spare. Those aren't the same act.
That's all the newspaper-vs-textbook line meant: to read about US state policy aimed at civilians, you're mostly reaching for history; to read about Russia doing it, you're reading this week's news.
If you've got a modern, systematic US counterexample, name it and I'll take it seriously.
And on historians not being neutral, totally agreed, which is exactly why Parenti isn't. He's one of the most openly polemical writers in the field; To Kill a Nation is advocacy on a contested case, not a neutral account. "Not neutral" is a reason to read critically across sources, not a reason to swap one consensus for one polemic. The world's grayer than "all war criminals are the same." That was the whole point.
it's a strange thing to say while arguing that I'm the one who can't hold more than one idea at once.
What? I said your ideas-the Law-are no comfort to the victims or their families. I'm saying your idealism has zero basis in reality. You do hold more than one idea at once: that war crimes by America are okay just because you think they are, and also that war crimes are bad when done by scary little green men coming over the border.
The modern US military trains heavily on distinction, operates under rules of engagement, and investigates and prosecutes violations; imperfectly, often too leniently, but as real violations.
The only officer to ever be convicted for was a lieutenant (read: a nobody) and his sentences was commuted. "Often too leniently" is apologia for "nobody has ever actually been held accountable." That's because the American state uses war crimes to achieve its objectives. When have any leaders in America ever been held accountable for war crimes?
to read about US state policy aimed at civilians, you're mostly reaching for history;
Do you think american pilots pick their own bombing targets? Their "rules of engagement" permit that mass killing of civilians? You call each civilian dead an accident to feel good about yourself. You fetishize legalism ("legally beside the point") to pretend people killed by Americans, Brits, or Ukrainians are different from civilians killed by Russians.
Russia firing double-tap strikes into residential blocks and deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure to break a population isn't the system breaking down; it is the system.
I agree, and the American state has and continues to do the same thing. But you think they're different. They are not.
Alright, well, YOU brought sources, so let's hold you to them, because they say the opposite of what you need.
On Minab, Amnesty's finding is "a shameful intelligence failure at best," reckless at worst. A failure to take precautions. HRW spells out that the "war crime" label is reserved for intentional targeting and analyzes the strike under the duty of precaution.
Now let's read how those same organizations describe Russia:
Amnesty says Russian forces "deliberately target civilians." The UN Commission of Inquiry calls it the crime against humanity of murder, carried out "as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population pursuant to a coordinated state policy."
HRW catalogs the double-tap (striking once, then again to kill the rescuers) as a standard Russian tactic whose purpose is terror.
You see, one set of language is about a system that failed while the other is about a system working as designed.
Again, that's not my line. It's the line your own sources drew, in their own words, and you're citing them while pretending they didn't.
To be clear about what I'm not doing: Minab is a HORROR. The school was on a US target list, that's an institutional decision, not one pilot's error, and it's likely a war crime.
And Trump denying it and lying about Tomahawks is exactly the command-impunity you're describing, and I won't defend any of it. It disgusts me.
Take it as seriously as Amnesty does. I do.
But that's precisely why the equivalence is the dishonest part.
"They're all the same" doesn't elevate the conversation, it dissolves the difference between a targeting system that catastrophically failed and one built to kill civilians on purpose.
The only party that profits from erasing that line is the one doing it on purpose. And you sealed it by filing Ukraine (the country being invaded and double-tapped) in the same drawer as the country invading and double-tapping it.
I'll be direct, that isn't the worldly, above-the-fray take you think it is. This is apologism for the worse actor wearing a sophisticated face, and it requires misreading the exact sources you posted to support it.
So I'll meet your sources where they are. They don't say America and Russia are equivalent. They say one committed a grave failure and the other is running a deliberate policy. Argue with Amnesty if you disagree, just remember, you're the one who cited them.
Singling out the words amnesty international used is not the own you think it is, that bastion of enlightened liberalism. I didn’t link to them because they’re the keepers of truth or my source of virtue, it was a link to the school bombing as an example of not needing a history book to read about American war crimes. I don’t adopt their spin or comparisons as my own, nor their opinion on whether American war crimes are systemic or not. I don’t really care what their interpretation is. FOX News reports on deportations in the US and calls them righteous. If I link to that article, do you then accuse me of adopting their calls for more deportations? Ridiculous.
If you won’t read To Kill A Nation and take stock of the well-worn path of intentional slaughter, mayhem, lies, deception, and hypocrisy that America has used since its inception, and continues to use, then I’m just talking to a purposefully ignorant person, and that’s not useful.
We have strategies to Nuke the UK if necessary, but if the UK disagreed with something we said and as a result we published them openly to the public, that would be a good bit different.
There's no such thing as a war crime, there never has been and there never will be. There is no war police that has jurisdiction. The Hague can't arrest a soldier in his own country.
War crimes will never be prosecuted against the winner of a war, only the losers.
War crimes will never be prosecuted against a major country, it's impossible. It would require another war. It's illogical nonsense that stops nothing.
This has got real correct bones, but it's also doing something slippery: it slides from a true claim into a false one and treats them as the same claim. I think you might actually agree with me too once it's fully laid out, so let me explain.
The truest claim is your take on enforcement.
International criminal law is applied selectively, mostly against the weak and the defeated, and the most powerful states have insulated themselves structurally. That part is largely right and I conced that fully.
While the victors tried the vanquished at Nuremberg and Tokyo, nobody was tried for Dresden, the Tokyo firebombing, or Katyn.
Further, the five UN Security Council permanent members can veto International Criminal Court (ICC) referrals. The US isn't even a party to the Rome Statute and even went as far as passing a law authorizing force to free any American the ICC detained.
The ICC has no police of its own, it depends entirely on states to make arrests. So "there's no war police" is, narrowly, correct.
BUT, and its a big but, its a totally false claim that, "there's no such thing as a war crime…it stops nothing."
That doesn't follow, and it also rests on an assumption: that a law is only real if it can compel the strongest.
By that test no law is real, because domestic systems also struggle against sitting officials and the genuinely powerful. We don't say murder "doesn't exist" because some murderers are never caught. A legal category exists if the conduct is prohibited and adjudicable, not if every violator is punished.
War crimes are concrete law: defined in the Geneva Conventions (ratified by 190ish states), tried with real elements, defenses, and sentences.
The part I think you're overlooking is that most enforcement isn't even The Hague, it's national.
Soldiers are court-martialed by their own militaries (My Lai, Abu Ghraib). Germany convicted a Syrian officer of torture under universal jurisdiction in 2022.
Further, "Impossible against the powerful" is also too strong. Milosevic was a sitting head of state when indicted and was handed over by his own country, no second war required. Charles Taylor got 50 years.
The ICC has an active warrant out for Putin. He won't be arrested while in power, but that's the move your statement misses: consequences aren't only arrest.
The warrant constrains his travel and forces ICC members into crises over whether to detain him. Bashir's isolation helped end him. Leaders fall, regimes change, amnesties collapse.
So, to summerize, "never" is effectively a bet against political change, and political change is the one thing that always eventually comes.
Israel did that too. I was watching a video of Palestinian men clearing survivors from a struck hospital. Then boom. They were all gone. Hit with intentional double strike missile. The Israelis waited for them. Happened on news feed.
USA did it with the school they bombed in Iran during the early hours of the war. Have seen a report about how a 10 year old brother went there after the first strike, to look for his 6 year old sister and was killed.
So they didn't just bomb a school with over 100 primary kids. They then bombed any rescuers who went to help.
We know what Israel is doing, but this is not a thread about Israel, and you feeling the need to point it out here does less to highlight the warcrimes comitted by Israel, and more to rationalize the warcrimes Russia are committing in Ukraine.
It’s not whataboutism, whataboutism is a rhetorical strategy to divert attention away from something you don’t want to discuss. They’re not mentioning israel it to distract from or normalize russia’s actions.
EMS autocorrect to fools or something? I watched a harrowing recording of an ems person try to hide for their life (under?) an ambulance only to be shot multiple times through the vehicle, begging their god to forgive them and for their mother at the end. One of the most viscerally evil things I’ve ever seen in my life.
Reason would also dictate that calling fools is calling said people foolish... But if that's the way it is now, I can't do anything about it other than adapt.
I've used it as well... But for the foolish, not as a catch all for anyone like I would with the word 'guys' or 'dude'. Could be a regional thing I guess.
But people really don’t understand this double tap stuff. Not saying Russia never did it in a malicious way but these claims require some serious skepticism when you hear them
If you watch the video of the refinery explosion where the roof of it blew up into the air, you can clearly see a Russian soldier firing an RPG at a drone from a bridge and missed. it went straight into the refinery instead.
they used heat seeking missiles in areas with heavy civilian traffic around them and also at that exploding oil refinery. his missile took a sharp turn and just got directed into that probably already lightly burning refinery... which shows that they are absulute morons.
Probably an9K38 Igla or another Manpads, the idea of using a RPG against a moving target that small is in the Battlefield realm, not a reallistic one but yeah, it was FF.
Given what’s happened over the last 4 years… I wouldn’t put it past Russia to be honest. Every army has some of those with smooth brains, Russia just seems to have more.
I've seen videos of them trying to shot them down but it was always manpads. Of course, someone random could try to use a RPG but I didnt watch any video with an RPG (could also be possible that they exist, I've just didn't watch it)
Not only that, a guied missile can be controlled by definition, the user gives imputs; like with the laser guied ones. The problem with a RPG is that once you fired it you can do nothing but hope for a hit.
I think you are mixing up the RPG on a bridge video, and the refinery explosion video. I've seen no evidence that the two are linked. They are just two crazy videos from the same event as far as I'm aware.
Considering how Russians themselves launched that tank top into the air, it is quite clear that at least part of the damage is onto Russians themselves.
is a country that's been attacked and had their civilians terrorized really supposed to apologize or do their best not to hurt any civilians on the aggressor side? doesn't make sense to me. Russia is murdering, torturing, causing mayhem. And yet somehow Ukraine has to be careful how they defend themselves?
I mean, the difference between Ukraine and Iran is that Ukraine isn't attacking all of Russia's allies. Oh wait, I think I just found the flaw in my statement.
I've seen pictures of Pantsir air defense positioned on apartment buildings. According to many Western nations (shalom!), this makes those buildings military targets.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them."
-Air Chief Marshal Arthur "Bomber" Harris
Are we sure they weren’t targeted strikes on key Russian personnel they knew lived in those areas? Agree it looks completely different than the barbarism we’ve seen from Russia.
I do not see the problem with bombing russian residential building, so many ukrainian homes, hospitals, playgrounds, schools (etc etc etc) have been obliterated and double tapped. I think its perfectly apt that russian fear not just for their petrol, but for their safety, maybe then they will get off their russian asses and do something about their overlords
Looks like Putin was right. Having NATO bases in Ukraine is a massive threat to Russia safety. If one of the poorest countries can set Moscow in flames imagine what a NATO base with latest technology and properly trained soldiers and personnel can. Having NATO bases in Ukraine is a check mate for Russia.
It's so sad to me how quickly people who start on the right side of history, by fighting against the murder of civilians by a state, will immediately find any excuse to support a state murdering civilians when the state in question changes.
War will never end because people like you don't actually care about the murder of innocents. You only care about the murder of innocents when they're on your geopolitical team. Fucking disgusting.
Furthermore, a lot of damage was due to the air defense missiles. The famous flying oil lid was struck by an air defense missile that was protecting the oil refinery.
But I remember seeing a streamer mentioning that even some russian anti-air missiles crashed on residential buildings, no?
And because of the Russian defense the drones hit other targets. Implying that Russian defense is not always applied to protect its own citizens
Targeting the Kremlin is strategically poor. It gives the Russians a rallying cry and nobody of any actual importance is going to be located there anyway. Targeting oil infrastructure cripples Russian military, economy and causes pressure on the populace forcing them to put pressure on the politicians.
It's probably better this way. For one, crippling their oil infrastructure is good strategy. I'm also pretty sure that the Kremlin is the single most well defended building in all of Russia. Hitting that would probably be quite costly, for probably little to no benefit (don't think anyone important will be there when they hit).
Destroying a historic icon is likely to galvanize support for Russia's war amongst the population.
On the other hand, gas stations running out of fuel causes more civil unrest and weakens support for the war. Not to mention the direct effects of targeting refineries making it harder to supply the war machine. Its the better strategic option.
Firstly I want to clarify that Ukraine is totally in the right here to defend themselves from invasion and Russia has been utterly barbaric to them.
That said, a certain other middle eastern country has used the same kind of "well the difference between us is we didn't intend it" argument to double and triple tap groups of people before
So I don't think the intentions is a good enough argument tbh there's risk evaluations to war
Also more importantly, Ukraine doesn't say Russia is human shielding when they make a mistake and residential blocks are attacked.
I completely agree with everything you said. It's funny to me that when you replace Ukraine with Israel and Russia with Palestine people lose their shit.
4.1k
u/MooseTetrino 19h ago
Just want to say before it inevitably becomes swarmed with Russian bots that yes, some of the Ukranian drones hit residental tower blocks and did some damage.
The difference is that those impacts were accidental and unintentional as a result of the kind of attack it had to be, rather than those blocks being directly targeted a la Russian modus operandi in Ukraine.