[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: Eight

[Snowygerry]

Well not really, sometimes you invade with a different motive, when the German army invaded Belgium in 1914, the the goal was to attack France.

When Napoleon invaded in 1815 the goal was to attack the allied army. In both cases invading Belgium was almost "coincidental".

That is not the case in this war, Ukraine and its population are the objective.

 

[Gorbles]

Those who try to make an argument in this thread that "Ukraine uses civilians as shields" are either vile contrarian freaks or lack basic knowledge on how defensive warfare in a country under constant missile shelling is conducted.
In the real world of Ukraine's reality, any infrastructure asset available can and will be used for the purpose of defending the country. Because today in 2024 I'm not even sure if there are any dedicated military infrastructure objects left intact in Ukraine. Constructing new assets is rarely viable due to resource constrains and often futility of the effort as there will be a missile or Iranian drone attack at the spot as soon as it becomes visible via a satellite or a recon drone.
And I'm not claiming here that the Chernihiv missile strike was aimed at some sort of military target. I don't know. Firstly, the only proof the Russian propaganda has so far managed to produce was a single photo of someone's legs visible on a stretcher that could be military outfit.
Secondly, as I've been saying here before, there are no valid military targets for the aggressor state here. In a defending country, its soldiers are yesterday's farmers, IT workers, bartenders etc. They've only become military men and women because their country is getting invaded by a fascist state.
Those who push the "valid military targets in Ukraine" argument either completely lost their moral compass in idealistic technicalities or being purposefully disingenuous for the sake of implanting a false equivalence narrative.

The Amnesty International article is pretty straightforward. Ukraine's defensive position doesn't justify ignoring humanitarian laws.

That said, raising "human shields" as a "counter-argument" for Russia's actions isn't (imo) a valid counter-argument. So if Crezth isn't willing to engage in discussion with the points made, dismiss and move on. There's no need to undermine international bodies because they're saying something you might find disagreeable.

And the explicit war aim of the Russian army is the Ukrainian citizenry, there are no "military objectives" in this war, Amnesty International is a bit behind the times.

No, you just don't like what they're saying. The whole point of consistency is to criticise when the "good guys" do "bad" things, otherwise "bad" things stops having all meaning. Think of other conflicts in the world, how people resisting occupation and invasion are criticised for not always doing the right thing. Consistency demands that Ukraine be held to the same standard, or that other defenders are held to Ukraine's standard. It can't be had both ways, when convenient. That's why we have things like international humanitarian law, which Amnesty is invoking.

 

[Snowygerry]

There was a time, in the 1990s, when we thought war could be fought with certain moral considerations, the time when we sent UN troops to Yugoslavia, Somalia, Ruanda,

that went out of the window after 9/11 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now we're back to the 19th century.

 

[banzay13]

Kharkov TV tower was destroyed by missile strike.

According to Russia's claims, it was used for military purposes.

FB just posted, what first video is fake

 

[Verbose]

The nature of war is the reason we make regulations and rules, laws even, to try to mitigate the worst. Because it is very bad when it occurs.

Then it's human nature that everything can be turned into a club to beat someone with, physically or metaphorically, including said laws and regulation.

Then it is a specific feature of western moral philosophy that intentions matter. Problems otoh start cropping when actors have unclear intentions, or actively obscures their intentions – and no one has thrown up a bigger wall of inconsistent BS than the Russian government carrying out its aggression against Ukraine.

 

[Gedemon]

The Amnesty International article is pretty straightforward. Ukraine's defensive position doesn't justify ignoring humanitarian laws.

That said, raising "human shields" as a "counter-argument" for Russia's actions isn't (imo) a valid counter-argument. So if Crezth isn't willing to engage in discussion with the points made, dismiss and move on. There's no need to undermine international bodies because they're saying something you might find disagreeable.


No, you just don't like what they're saying. The whole point of consistency is to criticise when the "good guys" do "bad" things, otherwise "bad" things stops having all meaning. Think of other conflicts in the world, how people resisting occupation and invasion are criticised for not always doing the right thing. Consistency demands that Ukraine be held to the same standard, or that other defenders are held to Ukraine's standard. It can't be had both ways, when convenient. That's why we have things like international humanitarian law, which Amnesty is invoking.

there is also a kind of false equivalence here, that article is from 2022, I don't think there was a lot of recurrences sinces, while civilian bombing is happening every weeks.

 

[Gorbles]

there is also a kind of false equivalence here, that article is from 2022, I don't think there was a lot of recurrences sinces, while civilian bombing is happening every weeks.

Birdjaguar never specified a date. Lexicus' link is valid and in good faith. We can recognise what has occurred, while also disagreeing with other posters who just use it for tit-for-tat.

And I know some posters will miss this, so once again just for the record: I disagreed that this in any way was a counter-argument to Russia's actions.

 

[EvaDK]

The US military aid package is rumored to contain hundreds of ATACMS including versions with 300km max range.

That will put the entirety of the Crimean peninsula and the Kerch Strait bridge within range of Ukraines ATACMS launchers.

 

[Gedemon]

Birdjaguar never specified a date. Lexicus' link is valid and in good faith. We can recognise what has occurred, while also disagreeing with other posters who just use it for tit-for-tat.

And I know some posters will miss this, so once again just for the record: I disagreed that this in any way was a counter-argument to Russia's actions.

it was also irrelevant in the context of the post, I may disagree with them, but red_elk and banzai13 both provided perfectly in context answers, while Crezth's answer is unrelated.

 

[Snowygerry]

The US military aid package is rumored to contain hundreds of ATACMS including versions with 300km max range.

That will put the entirety of the Crimean peninsula and the Kerch Strait bridge within range of Ukraines ATACMS launchers.

It makes sense to send everything but the kitchen sink, now, before the election complicates things again in November.

 

[Gedemon]

The US military aid package is rumored to contain hundreds of ATACMS including versions with 300km max range.

That will put the entirety of the Crimean peninsula and the Kerch Strait bridge within range of Ukraines ATACMS launchers.

AFAIK the bridge itself would resist the ATACMS warheads. The defenses around the bridge OTOH...

 

[saamohod]

That will put the entirety of the Crimean peninsula and the Kerch Strait bridge within range of Ukraines ATACMS launchers.

I don't think the Kerch bridge is any longer a high value target as it was in 2022-23. Russia was given ample time to adapt and take measures. Currently they are building a railroad along the Azov Sea coastline for that very reason. Disabling the bridge would cause some minor inconvenience for Crimean civilians, but won't collapse the military logistics.

 

[Sarin]

I don't think the Kerch bridge is any longer a high value target as it was in 2022-23. Russia was given ample time to adapt and take measures. Currently they are building a railroad along the Azov Sea coastline for that very reason. Disabling the bridge would cause some minor inconvenience for Crimean civilians, but won't collapse the military logistics.

Unless they also hit the bridges of that railroad.

 

[Crezth]

it was also irrelevant in the context of the post, I may disagree with them, but red_elk and banzai13 both provided perfectly in context answers, while Crezth's answer is unrelated.

Disagree! One can simply insist that Russia was attacking a valuable target and the Ukrainians irresponsibly failed to evacuate. It’s only a matter of narrative. Indeed it is exactly this narrative which prevails in many wars right now and is part of an overall permanent trend of justifying collateral casualties.

 

[Verbose]

I don't think the Kerch bridge is any longer a high value target as it was in 2022-23. Russia was given ample time to adapt and take measures. Currently they are building a railroad along the Azov Sea coastline for that very reason. Disabling the bridge would cause some minor inconvenience for Crimean civilians, but won't collapse the military logistics.

No, logistics is logistics. Planning something does bugger all – until the thing is actually built and operational.

The Russians are putting up clouds of talk about diversifying this – but it still all has to be built. And until then it is all hot air.

So Ukraine should hit the bridge. And then keep hitting the Russian logistics projects intended to lessen their dependence on that bridge.

Behind the Lines: Lies, Damned Lies, and Logistics in Ukraine

Russia’s occupying forces are working to improve access to occupied and annexed areas of Ukraine as existing routes become more dangerous.

cepa.org

 

[Gorbles]

Disagree! One can simply insist that Russia was attacking a valuable target and the Ukrainians irresponsibly failed to evacuate. It’s only a matter of narrative. Indeed it is exactly this narrative which prevails in many wars right now and is part of an overall permanent trend of justifying collateral casualties.

See now this I understand. I get what you're doing here (and I don't disagree). I guess I just come down on the side of making my analogies not end up being on the side of the aggressor.

 

[Gedemon]

Disagree! One can simply insist that Russia was attacking a valuable target and the Ukrainians irresponsibly failed to evacuate. It’s only a matter of narrative. Indeed it is exactly this narrative which prevails in many wars right now and is part of an overall permanent trend of justifying collateral casualties.

Source for the Russian avertissement ?

 

[Lexicus]

Those who try to make an argument in this thread that "Ukraine uses civilians as shields" are either vile contrarian freaks or lack basic knowledge on how defensive warfare in a country under constant missile shelling is conducted.
In the real world of Ukraine's reality, any infrastructure asset available can and will be used for the purpose of defending the country. Because today in 2024 I'm not even sure if there are any dedicated military infrastructure objects left intact in Ukraine. Constructing new assets is rarely viable due to resource constrains and often futility of the effort as there will be a missile or Iranian drone attack at the spot as soon as it becomes visible via a satellite or a recon drone.
And I'm not claiming here that the Chernihiv missile strike was aimed at some sort of military target. I don't know. Firstly, the only proof the Russian propaganda has so far managed to produce was a single photo of someone's legs visible on a stretcher that could be military outfit.
Secondly, as I've been saying here before, there are no valid military targets for the aggressor state here. In a defending country, its soldiers are yesterday's farmers, IT workers, bartenders etc. They've only become military men and women because their country is getting invaded by a fascist state.
Those who push the "valid military targets in Ukraine" argument either completely lost their moral compass in idealistic technicalities or being purposefully disingenuous for the sake of implanting a false equivalence narrative.

The argument of "human shields" is prerty much nonsense in any context where a military force is not actually compelling civilians to be human shields, but is merely operating to defend an urban area. No (competent) military force is going to position itself out in the open to be wiped out by an opponent's superior firepower. "MILITARY TARGET HERE" signs are not a thing.

Russia has used actual human shields repeatedly, compelling Ukrainian civilians and POWs to put themselves in the line of fire.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Back to war news please.

 

[Gedemon]

Some long range ATACMS were sent a few weeks ago and used last week

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-quietly-shipped-long-range-atacms-missiles-ukraine-2024-04-24/

The missiles were contained in a $300 million military aid package for Ukraine that U.S. President Joe Biden approved on March 12, said the U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official would not say how many of the missiles were sent.

The missiles were used for the first time in the early hours of April 17, launched against a Russian airfield in Crimea that was about 165 km (103 miles) from the Ukrainian front lines, the official said.