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.

  • Worstdriver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • sudneo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      All that said, any airport is a military target in time of war.

      Yeah, an airport for sure, I consider it “infrastructure”.

      • Worstdriver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • sudneo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “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.