NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
1. If that happened, I think that Ukraine wouldn't bomb hospitals and civilian buildings no matter what kind of targets are there, for a few reasons, no matter what kind of targets are there, for a few reasons, main one being the morality of such actions
Hospitals can lose their protective status if the other side uses them for harmful purposes:
ART. 19. — The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
The protective status of hospitals is not absolute and can be removed and still be moral or at the very least operating within the restrictions of the Geneva convention. But why make up hypothetical war crimes? I've already seen Russian drone footage targeting a clearly marked ambulance in contravention to the Geneva convention.
On May 19 2025 18:31 Jankisa wrote: Let's put the comparison in real terms. A nice what if scenario, we just move the dials a bit on the power balances. Important note: Putin and Russia for some reason decide that they won't threat with nukes or consider using them at all.
Let's say that on Feb 22 Russia attacked, just like they did. Let's say that the US has been preparing for this since 2014, after Crimea and Donbas and Luhansk Obama declared unlimited friendship and providing of the most modern weapons US has to give, F-35's, 2000 LB bombs, best AA and other systems, on top of unlimited intelligence sharing.
Then, in 2022 the attack gets repelled and squashed within 3 days, Russians are driven away from around Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkiv, then Ukrainian forces march on and during the next few months they, with support from US who parked an aircraft Carrier group in the Black Sea and provided support to Ukrainian navy who crushed and driven Russian one all the way to Sevastopol.
Ukrainians then proceed to bomb the shit out of Crimea, indiscriminately raining 2000 LB bombs on top of hospitals and civilian infrastructure that they claim was being used by Russian forces. They take Crimea.
They proceed and start a relentless bombing campaign and with thousands of civilian casualties over the next few months take whole Donbas and Luhansk.
They then set their sights at Kursk and Belgograd and start bombing campaigns.
I think we are around here on the timeline comparison, Israel is now doing things with an excuse of "stopping Hamas" that are completely unnecessary, but they "need their security", and I don't see why Ukraine shouldn't create a nice little buffer zones along border regions, taking a few cities and sending a message by bombing them relentlessly.
How many of you guys who are here with "but Hamas wants to destroy them" would be OK with Ukraine going this far?
I genuinely want to know, because to me everything beyond the first 3 months of Israel's operations in Gaza is collective punishment that constitutes war crimes and yes, at least an attempted genocide and 100 % ethnic cleansing.
I know that, for me, after Ukraine got it's territory back I would back the fuck up from my support of them as soon as they dropped a single bomb on actual Russian territory. I know that I'd probably start being very squirmy way before that, is it really, really necessary to bomb hospitals? Is punishing actual Crimean population really fair, after all, they joined Russia on false pretenses, with a rigged referendum, should they really be punished?
Not your actual question to the what if scenario, but with the conflict going as it was going, I think energy infrastructure and military buildings inside Russian borders are fair game. Schools, hospitals and shopping malls not so much. Sooner or later Russian military would probalby use those mentioned buildings for military purposes. Then they become fair game as well (in the hope civilians have evacuated and are not used as meatshields by Russian military).
With that, I firmly believe 2 things, I might be wrong, but that's what I believe:
1. If that happened, I think that Ukraine wouldn't bomb hospitals and civilian buildings no matter what kind of targets are there, for a few reasons, main one being the morality of such actions and secondary being how it would look outwardly 2. If Ukraine did it, none of their allies would be OK with it and pretend like it's a normal thing to bomb hospitals in a different country in order to secure yours
A hospital is a building with doctors and patients in it. If the war moves so it's on the frontline it won't have any doctors or patients in it because you don't run a hospital at the front. At that point it's just a building (or series of buildings if it's a big hospital). A very large, heavily reinforced building that usually has strategically placed entry points and several sublevels. Not an army on earth that wouldn't use it as a defensive strongpoint. No doubt Russia would too and Ukraine would bomb it if they did.
The difference is that both Israel and Russia targets hospitals behind the frontline that are actively in use.
On May 20 2025 02:18 Falling wrote: But why make up hypothetical war crimes? I've already seen Russian drone footage targeting a clearly marked ambulance in contravention to the Geneva convention.
I think it goes beyond that. I've seen reports somewhere that ambulances and rescue vehicles have higher target priority for Russian than even regular military targets.
Anyone surprised? Now he has to take a phone call from Zelensky and sanctions are beeing back on. Whatever the last person who talks to Trump says, counts! Trump is weaker than Scholz was lol.
Because the previous 22.000 sanctions have done so much to end the war already, two or three more sanctions would have surely ended it. Not peace talks and negotiations, oh no.
I guess when its not your head at stake, you are happy to keep someone elses banging against a brick wall without end
Because the previous 22.000 sanctions have done so much to end the war already, two or three more sanctions would have surely ended it. Not peace talks and negotiations, oh no.
I guess when its not your head at stake, you are happy to keep someone elses banging against a brick wall without end
Because the previous 22.000 sanctions have done so much to end the war already, two or three more sanctions would have surely ended it. Not peace talks and negotiations, oh no.
I guess when its not your head at stake, you are happy to keep someone elses banging against a brick wall without end
Why didn't Putin show up to the last peace talks then? Or do you think peace can be achieved when neither of the parties involved are willing to concede to the demands of the other?
Remember, Russia can end this tomorrow by pulling out of Ukraine. Ukraine can only end it by ceasing to be Ukraine - but that's after all what you want, isn't it?
Because the previous 22.000 sanctions have done so much to end the war already, two or three more sanctions would have surely ended it. Not peace talks and negotiations, oh no.
I guess when its not your head at stake, you are happy to keep someone elses banging against a brick wall without end
Why didn't Putin show up to the last peace talks then? Or do you think peace can be achieved when neither of the parties involved are willing to concede to the demands of the other?
Its almost as if countries and governments can appoint individuals to represent and protect their interests and sign treaties on their behalf. Human civilization have used these people called diplomats to come to agreements over the last few millennia. While today marks exactly one year since Zelensky's term as president officially ended without reelection - we don't live in the bronze age any more, even unelected or authoritarian governments have systems and procedures in place to conduct diplomacy. You don't get to chose who represents a certain country, whoever holds power in that country does.
Remember, Russia can end this tomorrow by pulling out of Ukraine. Ukraine can only end it by ceasing to be Ukraine - but that's after all what you want, isn't it?
The false dilemma fallacy involves presenting a limited number of options as if they were the only options available. This forces people to choose between two extremes, even though there is a spectrum of possibilities in between. The fallacy is misleading and prevents honest debate.
Because the previous 22.000 sanctions have done so much to end the war already, two or three more sanctions would have surely ended it. Not peace talks and negotiations, oh no.
I guess when its not your head at stake, you are happy to keep someone elses banging against a brick wall without end
Why didn't Putin show up to the last peace talks then? Or do you think peace can be achieved when neither of the parties involved are willing to concede to the demands of the other?
Its almost as if countries and governments can appoint individuals to represent and protect their interests and sign treaties on their behalf. Human civilization have used these people called diplomats to come to agreements over the last few millennia. While today marks exactly one year since Zelensky's term as president officially ended without reelection - we don't live in the bronze age any more, even unelected or authoritarian governments have systems and procedures in place to conduct diplomacy. You don't get to chose who represents a certain country, whoever holds power in that country does.
Remember, Russia can end this tomorrow by pulling out of Ukraine. Ukraine can only end it by ceasing to be Ukraine - but that's after all what you want, isn't it?
The false dilemma fallacy involves presenting a limited number of options as if they were the only options available. This forces people to choose between two extremes, even though there is a spectrum of possibilities in between. The fallacy is misleading and prevents honest debate.
It’s not a false dilemma fallacy. Russia can just do something vaguely palatable.
‘Honest debate’ give me a fucking break.
You’re so full of shit that medical science probably doesn’t fully understand how it’s not impeding your functioning.
It’s not a matter of disagreement, your entire worldview is so utterly ridiculous on every facet of this issue that engagement is both pointless, and indeed non-desirable.
Because the previous 22.000 sanctions have done so much to end the war already, two or three more sanctions would have surely ended it. Not peace talks and negotiations, oh no.
I guess when its not your head at stake, you are happy to keep someone elses banging against a brick wall without end
Why didn't Putin show up to the last peace talks then? Or do you think peace can be achieved when neither of the parties involved are willing to concede to the demands of the other?
Remember, Russia can end this tomorrow by pulling out of Ukraine. Ukraine can only end it by ceasing to be Ukraine - but that's after all what you want, isn't it?
Russia doesn't end "this"" by pulling out of Ukraine, they see "this" as an operation, i.e. milestones and key objectives. Ukraine either has to accept they are losing and make big compromise or call Russia bluff and hope for the best.
There is no compromise offer on the table, nor will there be. This war is existential. Russia is unwilling to accept a former colony having independence. They require Ukraine return to vassal status.
On May 21 2025 10:10 KwarK wrote: There is no compromise offer on the table, nor will there be. This war is existential. Russia is unwilling to accept a former colony having independence. They require Ukraine return to vassal status.
If it’s existential then why have talks for the past few years? I thought ceasefire etc would buy Russia more time for bigger invasion?
On May 21 2025 10:10 KwarK wrote: There is no compromise offer on the table, nor will there be. This war is existential. Russia is unwilling to accept a former colony having independence. They require Ukraine return to vassal status.
If it’s existential then why have talks for the past few years? I thought ceasefire etc would buy Russia more time for bigger invasion?
Those talks that haven’t gone anywhere? Not sure you’re making the point you think you are. They were a waste of time which is why Russia didn’t bother with them.
Russia has decided they will not tolerate an independent Ukraine. Ukraine can’t compromise with that because you can’t be sovereign only half the time or whatever. There is no middle ground.
On May 21 2025 10:10 KwarK wrote: There is no compromise offer on the table, nor will there be. This war is existential. Russia is unwilling to accept a former colony having independence. They require Ukraine return to vassal status.
If it’s existential then why have talks for the past few years? I thought ceasefire etc would buy Russia more time for bigger invasion?
Those talks that haven’t gone anywhere? Not sure you’re making the point you think you are. They were a waste of time which is why Russia didn’t bother with them.
Russia has decided they will not tolerate an independent Ukraine. Ukraine can’t compromise with that because you can’t be sovereign only half the time or whatever. There is no middle ground.
um no?
Ukraine doesn't see it as "waste of time" or "can't compromise" or "no middle ground". If Ukraine sees it as the way you do, there wouldn't even be any attempts for any talk, and for the past few years there had been multiple attempts and talks.
Having no result, or Russia grand scheme of eliminating Ukraine, is not even relevant.
On May 21 2025 10:10 KwarK wrote: There is no compromise offer on the table, nor will there be. This war is existential. Russia is unwilling to accept a former colony having independence. They require Ukraine return to vassal status.
If it’s existential then why have talks for the past few years? I thought ceasefire etc would buy Russia more time for bigger invasion?
Those talks that haven’t gone anywhere? Not sure you’re making the point you think you are. They were a waste of time which is why Russia didn’t bother with them.
Russia has decided they will not tolerate an independent Ukraine. Ukraine can’t compromise with that because you can’t be sovereign only half the time or whatever. There is no middle ground.
um no?
Ukraine doesn't see it as "waste of time" or "can't compromise" or "no middle ground". If Ukraine sees it as the way you do, there wouldn't even be any attempts for any talk, and for the past few years there had been multiple attempts and talks.
Having no result, or Russia grand scheme of eliminating Ukraine, is not even relevant.
It's been explained multiple times yet you keep asking those stupid questions. There is no middle ground for Russia. Nothing short of full conquest of Ukraine (either now or at a later stage) will satisfy them. Ukraine is prepared to make some concessions (like losing some territory in exchange for credible security guarantees). That's why Ukraine has been engaging in peace talks in earnest while Russia has not. For Russia they're a tool to create bad optics for Ukraine. Every time Russia makes some ludicrous offer and Ukraine rejects it, there will be idiots painting Ukraine as not wanting peace. This is particularly true after Trump was re-elected.
On May 21 2025 10:10 KwarK wrote: There is no compromise offer on the table, nor will there be. This war is existential. Russia is unwilling to accept a former colony having independence. They require Ukraine return to vassal status.
If it’s existential then why have talks for the past few years? I thought ceasefire etc would buy Russia more time for bigger invasion?
Those talks that haven’t gone anywhere? Not sure you’re making the point you think you are. They were a waste of time which is why Russia didn’t bother with them.
Russia has decided they will not tolerate an independent Ukraine. Ukraine can’t compromise with that because you can’t be sovereign only half the time or whatever. There is no middle ground.
um no?
Ukraine doesn't see it as "waste of time" or "can't compromise" or "no middle ground". If Ukraine sees it as the way you do, there wouldn't even be any attempts for any talk, and for the past few years there had been multiple attempts and talks.
Having no result, or Russia grand scheme of eliminating Ukraine, is not even relevant.
It's been explained multiple times yet you keep asking those stupid questions. There is no middle ground for Russia. Nothing short of full conquest of Ukraine (either now or at a later stage) will satisfy them. Ukraine is prepared to make some concessions (like losing some territory in exchange for credible security guarantees). That's why Ukraine has been engaging in peace talks in earnest while Russia has not. For Russia they're a tool to create bad optics for Ukraine. Every time Russia makes some ludicrous offer and Ukraine rejects it, there will be idiots painting Ukraine as not wanting peace. This is particularly true after Trump was re-elected.
It's a stupid presumption that Ukraine is treating Russia as an existential threat and that there is no middle ground for any kinds of negotiation, even with all the talks that have been happening. And yes one side eventually have to make compromise and make some counter-offer, and that's the losing side. This is how any negotiation goes. Ukraine or Russia, don't matter, same logic applies.
Why is Ukraine showing up for peace talks? Because the rest of the world wants to keep up appearances that this conflict can be resolved without completely destroying Russia's ability to wage war.
They show up because that is what is expected of them. Like so much of diplomacy it is pure show without substance.
EPT
