From the founder of Wildberries …
“There are no words to describe all the feelings and emotions caused by the attacks on ordinary people, on our employees, on us, who are simply doing our jobs,” she wrote on Telegram. “But these situations demonstrate the most important thing: we must continue to do what we do for the benefit of people.”
I agree, but I also didn’t say “terrorism;” I used the far more precise term of terror bombing, meaning “the strategic bombing of civilian targets without military value, in the hope of damaging an enemy’s morale.”
There are targets of opportunity, but should have enough military value to make the opportunity worth the moral cost.
Again literally Zionist rhetoric. Is international law (or the basic morality meant to be portrayed by it) just for show or what? Wasn’t killing civilians bad? If “putting pressure on the enemy” is enough justification to bomb something then, again, we should be celebrating 9/11. Otherwise Ukraine has the right to defend itself, but not—barring clear military value—to bomb online retailers. And in any case, this lesson has been learned time and time again since WWII; terror bombing only galvanizes the enemy population and absolutely doesn’t compel surrender. Putin couldn’t ask for better propaganda.
This is more strategic bombing than terror bombing though. Terror bombing would be, for example, targeting apartments, or things like that. This is a warehouse that is used by a company supplying goods to the military. The fact it also damages civilian quality of life is just a bonus (in my opinion, or negative if you think civilians shouldn’t face consequences).
Just because it’s similar to rhetoric Zionists use doesn’t make it Zionist rhetoric. The largest difference is the Zionists are the invaders, as the Russians are in this case. If Palestinians can fight back like the Ukrainians are here, to try to force Israel to back off, then I’m in favor of it.
Basically, yes, and it always has been. Russia didn’t agree to the same rules, so Ukraine shouldn’t have to follow them when defending from them. It’s like if a soccer/football team plays against a rugby team. If they don’t have the same rules, it isn’t really going to work out. The rules are there so, after it’s over, we can decide who to hold accountable.
If Ukraine follows all the international laws then they’re fucked. For example, antipersonnel mines are banned by international law. Meanwhile Russia is throwing them all over the place. Should Ukraine, the defenders, not be allowed to use that tool to prevent advances? Sure, the effects after are horrible, but the effects of Ukraine losing would be worse, and they’re there anyway because of Russia.
I agree. That’s why Ukraine hasn’t done so. They could hit apartments in Moscow, like Russia is doing, but that wouldn’t serve their goal. The goal is to put pressure on civilians. It’s not like they targeted civilians here. They targeted a warehouse. I’m not sure how many dies, if any, but it won’t be a large number. It will prevent or slow down purchases though. It won’t really galvanize them, rather it’ll annoy them. If they wanted to hurt civilians they would have hit a power station near Moscow.
Not necessarily. Like I said elsewhere in this thread, if a company makes guns for the enemy military and toys children in different factories, only the gun factory would be legal to bomb; bombing the toy factory would still be a war crime despite the shared ownership. Similarly, it’s on Ukraine to prove that the warehouses they bombed were being actively used to supply the Russian military in quantities justifying the loss of life and property.
Civilians, who are (especially in a colonial autocracy like Russia) third parties not directly involved in the conflict, don’t suddenly have their rights waived because the armed gang ruling over them are pieces of shit. That’s collective punishment, and even without international law it’s the sort of thing we always recognize as psychopathic when done to anyone we don’t already hate. “People shouldn’t be punished for things they didn’t do” is ethics 101. A given rule could be up for discussion if sticking to it would seriously hamper Ukraine’s war effort, but that’s not what’s going on here. Either the Wildberries warehouses bombed were significant contributors to Russian logistics, in which case they’re legal to bomb anyway, or they’re not and bombing them does nothing to advance the Ukrainian war effort, and the Ukrainian military, as the ones doing the bombing in this case, have a responsibility to prove the former is the case.
Things that would make one fucked if not done are generally not banned under international law. As for your example, anti-personnel mines aren’t banned under international law. There’s a treaty to ban them, but that’s a different story.
The article doesn’t give total numbers, but it does list plenty of death and injury.
Also, it’s not like ruining people’s livelihoods is exactly kosher without clear military value.
Things being on fire tends to galvanize people against the people setting things on fire even if nobody was dying (which is not the case here), and you can bet that Russian media will amplify the damage done to small businesses.
Then actions taken primarily in service of that goal are war crimes, plain and simple. Anything negative with “civilians” in it as the primary goal of a military action is pretty much guaranteed to be a war crime, because protecting civilians from armed reprisal is half the point of international law.
Or it could be that they couldn’t find an excuse to bomb those. Besides, they’re bombing oil infrastructure instead, which seems to have pretty much the same effect (while still having a clear military purpose).
I don’t agree with this. The company is providing funding to the military, which is made through sales. Part of the war is cutting off this funding. The fact they’re also distributing weapons just makes them a particularly nice target, but I think attacking the oligarchs is good regardless, as they’re part of the larger system that’s doing the invasion. Yeah, they shouldn’t be attacking targets that intentionally harm civilians with no other motive, but they should be targeting the larger strategic assets that fund the war. A kinetic embargo, so to speak.
I didn’t say they need to be punished. You’re misinterpreting what I said. I said they need to suffer consequences. This isn’t to rehabilitate them or bring justice, like a punishment is meant to. It’s because they need to rise up against the oligarchy. It’s not a punishment. It’s an incentive. It isn’t because they did something wrong and need to be served justice. It’s because the war needs to end and Putin isn’t going to end it; they must. If they get to live their lives undisturbed by the war, while their nation makes those across the border a living hell, they have no reason to overthrow their leaders. If their lives are falling apart then they do.
What do you think international law is? It’s a bunch of treaties. It isn’t some thing that just exists. It’s agreements by other nations. And no, it sometimes does make you fucked. For example, Ukraine would not be allowed to build nuclear weapons, despite it almost certainly offering them protection. Meanwhile Russia is allowed to have them and build more. International law is mostly a fiction. Morality we can discuss, but international law is not just some descrete set of rules that you must follow. It’s guidelines, and going over the blurry edge is generally allowed. Hell, even when you go way too far (Israel) there are often very few, if any, consequences.
If you want to discuss morality, then we can have a discussion. If bombing these warehouses brings an end to the invasion quicker, and fewer people die because of it, isn’t it morally justified? It isn’t like you’re cutting off their water and making thousands suffer and die. You’re cutting off supply for businesses, and maybe a few civilians die (a shit ton more soldiers are dying every day, many drafted who would be civilians by choice). It’s a morally justified target from most viewpoints I can think of. The only one that wouldn’t justify it is if only actions matter and not consequences, aka deontologism. This might be what you follow, but I don’t think many modern people do. Most people think the consequences matter.
War isn’t kosher! I don’t know if you’ve never seen what war actually looks like, or never thought about it, but war is fucked up. No one gets to sit on moral high ground in war. You kill the other person or you die; sometimes both. It’s brutal and disgusting, and anyone saying it needs to follow some strict moral ruleset is going to be dead on the battlefield. If you can do something that prevents more of “the good guys” from dying, especially if it also prevents more of the bad guys from fighting, it’s a good thing.
You know what galvanizes them even more? Telling them they’re fighting a righteous battle and then continuing life as normal. If they see that their lives are at risk, not just some far off enemy, then they will eventually take a stand. Letting them live in peace and not have the war come to them will not force them to end the war. When has that ever happened?
No it isn’t! It’s to prevent unnecessary damage. Civilians have certain protections, but international law does not shield them from the consequences of a war their nation is waging. Here’s the relevant article. If it isn’t indiscriminate and has any military value (and is not a select few explicit civilian structures) then it’s a valid target. To say it isn’t you need to prove that they knew it didn’t have any military purpose, which isn’t going to happen.
Yes, those have a clear military purpose. They are bombing power infrastructure in Crimea, so I think they could find the excuse if they wanted to. There, it’s pretty damn valid, as the place is being put under siege. The power is being used for military installations, and the civilians have a path to leave. They could use the same excuse elsewhere, but they aren’t.
This isn’t going anywhere so I’m gonna disengage after this, but I have to say: This is the most fucked up thing I’ve read today. So basically taxpaying businesses, businesses owned by political leaders and/or elites and anything to “incentivise” locals to stop the war is okay to bomb (hint: the latter is literally terror bombing). Also the Geneva Convention doesn’t matter if it’s for a good cause, collective punishment is okay if you don’t call it that and civilian infrastructure is okay to bomb until proven otherwise. And don’t tell me you didn’t say that because this is exactly what you said and being kinda sad about it doesn’t change that. This conversation is over.