Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has warned that it was “inevitable” that “war” would come to Russia after authorities there were forced to temporarily close a busy Moscow airport following an overnight drone attack on the capital.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has warned that it was “inevitable” that “war” would come to Russia after authorities there were forced to temporarily close a busy Moscow airport following an overnight drone attack on the capital.
The Geneva convention is a set of rules created so that during a war actions aren’t taken by either side. They only work if they are followed by both. One side has been targeting civilians since day 1. That rule has been broken so is no longer a concern.
If a nation is using chemical weapons, for example, just yelling about the rules doesn’t change anything. You need to adapt to the new rules for that war, whatever they are. You don’t have the option to be polite in war.
A war crime is a always a war crime. And the people committing war crimes will always be war criminals. Public opinion doesn’t matter. The fact that certain countries don’t prosecute war criminals doesn’t matter. The fact that certain countries try to legitimize war crimes doesn’t matter. A war crime is always a war crime. And a war criminal will always be a war criminal. It really is that sjmple.
Sometimes in war there is a choice between being a war criminal or being annihilated, though. Also, these choices are made by the elite who aren’t playing by the same rules as everyone else. They can’t be tried for war crimes if they win the war, and that’s all that they care about.
Plus like other commentors said, Russia is the one who made the rules this way.
A rule that is not enforced is not a rule.
The enforcement of the rule at a later date will be affected by the outcome of the war. If Ukraine loses the war, who will be held accountable for Putin’s crimes?
The rule will not be enforced, so limiting only the vulnerable, honest side is not a fair application of the rule. It may result in the deaths of many more innocent, vulnerable Ukranians who are the victims in this invasion.
The invader has set the rules with their attacks. Let them suffer the rules they have set.
This is a new perspective I was not aware of. Why would they work only if followed by both sides, considering that affect people outside the conflict and do not grant any military advantages? I don’t think it works like this that once a rule is broken automatically “is no longer a concern”.
Your example doesn’t fit, because you specifically picked one that -while constituting possibly a banned weapon- does grant you military advantages. I am talking about thinks like killing war prisoners, killing or attacking civilians etc., which are the subject of the Geneva convention, AFAIK.
Attacking some civilian targets does have a strategic advantage. First, attacking factories can deny resources. Second, making a population tired and stressed can lead to issues at home that need to be taken care of, which takes manpower and resources. I’m not condoning it, but it does create some strategic value. That’s what the bombings of cities were for during WWII. It was largely about destroying war infrastructure (with hard to aim weapons and poor compared to modern intelligence).
War prisoners also take resources to care for. If they’re dead, they don’t. It’s potentially advantageous to not have them. Again, not condoning it, just stating reality.
The Geneva convention covers many things. It’s a set of guidelines to ensure war doesn’t escalate. There’s some things that are banned just so it’s not confused as another form of attack and things spiral. It only works if both sides of a war agree on the rules though, otherwise why is one side not allowed to use tools their enemy is using?
I think this is an interesting arguments. I would probably debate whether economic (marginal) damages constitute a strategic advantage, but in general I agree that it’s true. Injured people, manpower loss etc. is an overall damage. Maybe I would rephrase in that they don’t translate into immediate military gains, and there are of course negative sides as well (like the loss of image which I think is crucial for Ukraine in particular). I still feel that the benefits mentioned are not that valuable to violate the overall principles, especially because any violation is a step further towards abandoning those principles at all, which I don’t think is anyone interests (not that Russia is respecting any of those anyway, but this can have effects on other wars as well, potentially).
It’s a principle in warfare, and particularly warfare since WWI, that whatever you do in war, can be done TO you with no repercussions. It is why the US has a standing stated policy that they will nuke anyone using an ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) weapon. If you attack with a weapon of mass destruction the reserves the right to nuke you.
Same principle. If you attack civilians you just authorized attacks on YOUR civilians . If you attack non-military targets you just authorized attacks on your non-military targets.
All that said, any airport is a military target in time of war.
Any reference to this principle? This doesn’t sound like a way international right works. I can imagine this can be part of military doctrine, though.
Yeah, an airport for sure, I consider it “infrastructure”.
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: Some obligations under the law of armed conflict are reciprocal in that they are binding on the parties only so long as both sides continue to comply with them. A major violation by one side will release the other side from all further duty to abide by that obligation.
“Some” obligations may perfectly work this way . Not sure I would take a military handbook as a reference for international right (especially from one of the countries that doesn’t even recognize the ICC), but either way, I strongly doubt the meaning is “if they start torturing their prisoners, we should torture ours” or mirroring other war crimes. I am no expert, but I think that the motivation “the enemy did it before us” wouldn’t hold much in the ICC.
You’ve never heard of people responding to rule breaking with rule breaking of their own? Your assertion that it has no military advantage is flat out wrong, this attack has a military advantage. It brings the fight closer to Putin and requires them to divert forces. It also makes the Russian people more likely to revolt against the war.
I did definitely hear about this, but I don’t think I can say I understand it in all situations. Specifically about this, I quote:
As a commentary to the Article 2 of the 4th Geneva convention.
Realistically, Russia seems to be perfectly content in having its own population die. These advantages might be true, but they depend a lot on how Russia reacts to this. As far as Putin is concerned, I am quite sure he has a permanent residence in some bunker somewhere anyway.
I think this is a legitimate opinion, but I think that history showed us over and over that attacked populations tend to unite. I don’t know if you have any particular example in mind.