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.
War crimes are war crimes exactly because you don’t want to open the can of worms exposing your own people to reprisals. That can was opened by Russia, and as reprisals go this is a very, very mild response that’s clearly attempting to target infrastructure not people (and consumer infrastructure at that, not even things like power and water).
I think targeting consumer infrastructure in response to having your schools targeted is pretty damned reserved. We consider the abuse received by someone murdering their abuser in how we respond, I think even war crimes need to be considered in the context they’re committed. I’d similarly say tortured POWs escaping and murdering their torturers should have that context considered when judging what if any punishment should be received.
I think it’s hard to take a hard-line stance here against Ukraine when there’s no real international response to stop war crimes being committed against them. I think if the UN or Europe was putting boots on the ground in response to Russian war crimes explicitly, you can better make the argument that there’s a responsibility to let justice take its course… it’s hard for me to say someone can’t respond by, if we’re being honest, a far more minor crime when on the receiving end of far, far more brutality.
I think there’s a point where abstract morality conflicts with practical situation. And in a situation where there is no “police” enforcing the law, it isn’t reasonable to say only one side must strictly adhere to it, likely at the cost of their survival, to have a moral high ground in death.
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.
Try to keep a level head here. I explicitly am not providing logic to cover genocides as reprisals, I’m not even arguing eye for an eye here; I’m arguing that putting economic pressure on a civilian population by targeting commercial infrastructure, in response to brutal war crimes such as the targeting of children’s schools, is a pretty reasoned and limited response. I would not excuse them targeting Russian civilians directly.
A Nazi would not be putting this level of thought into the morality of war crimes, and you know this. Might simply makes right for them.
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 think the exact context of the response matters a lot here. I don’t think deliberately targeting civilians or life critical infrastrucrure would be excusable. I think targeting consumer infrastructure, at night to limit casualties, in response to serious war crimes, is much more excusable and a context that matters and is dishonest to remove. Crucially, particularly when there’s no justice available to the victim to find a legal solution.
This is what made Balkan genocides and responses different, that was in a process of justice that ultimately resulted in literal international police action to enforce the law on war crimes being perpetrated. There’s a responsibility there to let justice take its course.
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. If we want sides to respect war crimes, we need to put our money where our mouth is and be willing to put ourselves at risk too to see that done, beyond milquetoast sanctions.
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?
Nah, you can’t go calling well thought out positions childish and silly and expect to continue conversation. Learn a lesson on how to conduct yourself and kindly piss off.
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? In that case, I’ll answer in kind and ask you to answer my point first before I respond…
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? Is it wrong for an abused woman to kill her rapist in the act? Or are there cases where a morally wrong action is sometimes warranted?
I actually do have a thoughtful response to your question that isn’t a pithy meme, but I’d like to see some good faith from you first and see you actually address the core moral question of my point first.
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.
I mean, I am using adult conversation as you can see. I can do two things at once.
Nope, one undermines the other. You can’t actually engage in good faith adult conversation while being reductive and childish… the latter precludes the former. If you’re being childish by definition you aren’t being mature.
I also have not conflated civilian and military populations. I drew an explicit distinction. There’s nothing wrong with targeting military personnel as targets themselves; I’ve already said attempting to target civilians directly as a reprisal, I wouldn’t support. Non critical civilian infrastructure that also supports military, however, I think is far less morally questionable.
The example was purely to point out that normally immoral actions can in some situations be moral. Not all war crimes are created equal… shoplifting is more easily justified than murder. Similarly, targeting warehouses for consumer goods in the way least impactful to life possible is far more easily justified than targeting schools; equivocating these just because they’re both crimes is imo not being honest.
anymore than getting punched by a man would justify punching his cousin.
You see, you are equivocating here. If what Russia did is punching, Ukraine’s action is not punching. It was pretty clearly not even an attempt to kill civilians.
This is more like punching the business partner who (knowingly) is in business with someone who killed your family in order to put pressure on them to stop doing business with him. When there’s no police to help you legally find justice, importantly.
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.
Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.
You can disagree with it, but this is just bullshit. That is a very well reasoned and difficult moral analysis. Stop being a baby and use big boy words and maybe consider for 5 seconds that some moral questions are actually really fucking difficult and not everyone will agree on.
I can just as easily argue you’re being a literal child by refusing to engage in serious and difficult moral questions by equivocating explicit bombing of schools and civilians with bombing commercial warehouses, at night to avoid casualties (that are also providing some supplies to military by the way) as both being “crimes against humanity”. One is a very clear crime against humanity, the other is a lot more unclear, they are not equivalent and being unsure about the latter (as a response to the former, by the way) does not at all give logical cover for the former.
War crimes are war crimes exactly because you don’t want to open the can of worms exposing your own people to reprisals. That can was opened by Russia, and as reprisals go this is a very, very mild response that’s clearly attempting to target infrastructure not people (and consumer infrastructure at that, not even things like power and water).
I think targeting consumer infrastructure in response to having your schools targeted is pretty damned reserved. We consider the abuse received by someone murdering their abuser in how we respond, I think even war crimes need to be considered in the context they’re committed. I’d similarly say tortured POWs escaping and murdering their torturers should have that context considered when judging what if any punishment should be received.
I think it’s hard to take a hard-line stance here against Ukraine when there’s no real international response to stop war crimes being committed against them. I think if the UN or Europe was putting boots on the ground in response to Russian war crimes explicitly, you can better make the argument that there’s a responsibility to let justice take its course… it’s hard for me to say someone can’t respond by, if we’re being honest, a far more minor crime when on the receiving end of far, far more brutality.
I think there’s a point where abstract morality conflicts with practical situation. And in a situation where there is no “police” enforcing the law, it isn’t reasonable to say only one side must strictly adhere to it, likely at the cost of their survival, to have a moral high ground in death.
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.
Try to keep a level head here. I explicitly am not providing logic to cover genocides as reprisals, I’m not even arguing eye for an eye here; I’m arguing that putting economic pressure on a civilian population by targeting commercial infrastructure, in response to brutal war crimes such as the targeting of children’s schools, is a pretty reasoned and limited response. I would not excuse them targeting Russian civilians directly.
A Nazi would not be putting this level of thought into the morality of war crimes, and you know this. Might simply makes right for them.
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 think the exact context of the response matters a lot here. I don’t think deliberately targeting civilians or life critical infrastrucrure would be excusable. I think targeting consumer infrastructure, at night to limit casualties, in response to serious war crimes, is much more excusable and a context that matters and is dishonest to remove. Crucially, particularly when there’s no justice available to the victim to find a legal solution.
This is what made Balkan genocides and responses different, that was in a process of justice that ultimately resulted in literal international police action to enforce the law on war crimes being perpetrated. There’s a responsibility there to let justice take its course.
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. If we want sides to respect war crimes, we need to put our money where our mouth is and be willing to put ourselves at risk too to see that done, beyond milquetoast sanctions.
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?
Nah, you can’t go calling well thought out positions childish and silly and expect to continue conversation. Learn a lesson on how to conduct yourself and kindly piss off.
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? In that case, I’ll answer in kind and ask you to answer my point first before I respond…
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? Is it wrong for an abused woman to kill her rapist in the act? Or are there cases where a morally wrong action is sometimes warranted?
I actually do have a thoughtful response to your question that isn’t a pithy meme, but I’d like to see some good faith from you first and see you actually address the core moral question of my point first.
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.
Nope, one undermines the other. You can’t actually engage in good faith adult conversation while being reductive and childish… the latter precludes the former. If you’re being childish by definition you aren’t being mature.
I also have not conflated civilian and military populations. I drew an explicit distinction. There’s nothing wrong with targeting military personnel as targets themselves; I’ve already said attempting to target civilians directly as a reprisal, I wouldn’t support. Non critical civilian infrastructure that also supports military, however, I think is far less morally questionable.
The example was purely to point out that normally immoral actions can in some situations be moral. Not all war crimes are created equal… shoplifting is more easily justified than murder. Similarly, targeting warehouses for consumer goods in the way least impactful to life possible is far more easily justified than targeting schools; equivocating these just because they’re both crimes is imo not being honest.
You see, you are equivocating here. If what Russia did is punching, Ukraine’s action is not punching. It was pretty clearly not even an attempt to kill civilians.
This is more like punching the business partner who (knowingly) is in business with someone who killed your family in order to put pressure on them to stop doing business with him. When there’s no police to help you legally find justice, importantly.
Yes, that’s pretty justifiable in my view.
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.
You can disagree with it, but this is just bullshit. That is a very well reasoned and difficult moral analysis. Stop being a baby and use big boy words and maybe consider for 5 seconds that some moral questions are actually really fucking difficult and not everyone will agree on.
I can just as easily argue you’re being a literal child by refusing to engage in serious and difficult moral questions by equivocating explicit bombing of schools and civilians with bombing commercial warehouses, at night to avoid casualties (that are also providing some supplies to military by the way) as both being “crimes against humanity”. One is a very clear crime against humanity, the other is a lot more unclear, they are not equivalent and being unsure about the latter (as a response to the former, by the way) does not at all give logical cover for the former.
You know what, screw it, blocked.