|
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. |
United States44398 Posts
On July 28 2026 01:34 r00ty wrote:
"I think of Coventry and have nothing to object."
-Thomas Mann commenting the bombing of his hometown of Lübeck during WW2.
As mentioned there's a clear aggressor here that committed and keeps committing an estimated shitton of war crimes and could end this war anytime they please.
For additional context, Hitler believed that the German race deserved to be destroyed for their failure to prevail in the Darwinistic struggle of nations. A large proportion of German civilian deaths were caused by the German insistence that the Allies take German soil, city by city, long after political leadership concluded the war was lost. The destruction of cities and the death of German civilians was a matter of explicit government policy by the duly elected German government who sought to use the Red Army as an instrument to carry out that policy.
It was a case of deliberate maximization of German casualties, but by the German government. Fascism, not even once.
|
On July 28 2026 00:31 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 18:28 Excludos wrote:On July 27 2026 03:39 2Pacalypse- wrote:On July 26 2026 18:21 Simberto wrote:On July 26 2026 10:13 Falling wrote:Waging economic warfare by bombing industrial production and commercial distribution centres to push out an invading army that targets civilians (human safari in Kherson), residential buildings, clearly marked red-cross vehicles, and tortures prisoners is well within the bounds of an ethically run war. Russia still has many more young men to feed into the meat grinder, so to save lives (including Russian) it's better to grind their economy to a halt any way they can-- like targetting the shadow fleet. It may be difficult to be optimistic about the future but the way Ukraine has run their war has been inspiring. I am reminded of a video of a surrendered Russian soldier who asks: "Will you take us prisoner or kill us?" Ukrainian soldier: "Prisoner. We are not you." Just so. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1uhbmin/russian_soldier_asked_ukrainian_soldier_will_you/ I think part of this is that Ukraine is very dependent on outside support. If you start committing war crimes, people in other countries start to ask if they really should continue supporting you. Meanwhile, if you act like the good guys, other countries can feel good sending you military equipment. From the Ukrainian perspective, war crimes and targetting civilians would be a strategically really bad idea. And i assume leadership knows that, and are on top of not getting bad press. Yeah, which is why it's a really bad timing that Ukraine started committing war crimes themselves it seems: https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2080084259134406875You could say one video might be a fluke or a false flag operation, but seems like there are multiple videos that Ukranians posted themselves where they slam drones into civilian cars at gas stations, mostly in Belgorod region. It's such an unforced error too, because now you're just giving munition with no real rebuttals to the other side, which is something they more or less didn't have for the past 5 years. I'm not saying it's great, but I'd argue that gas stations are legitimate targets, and it's a shame if there happen to be civilians there when you hit it I am not sure about that. As far as I understand it, there are civilian targets which are never ok to be deliberately targeted, dual use targets which are both used in a civilian as well as military capacity (like a power plant that both supplies a military base, weapons factory etc. and civilian housing) which are bit more difficult to assess, and purely military targets. Both military and dual use targets are usually fair game, but with both you always have to consider collateral damage. Blowing up a gas station in the middle of the day with a bunch of civilians queued up and no military vehicles in sight when you could just as well have done that in the night is... problematic at best I would say. Considering if "there happen to be civilians there when you hit it" is part of what you have to consider and if you don't, or what you accept as acceptable collateral is wildly disproportional, then you are entering war crime territory. I am not surprised but still disappointed to see such poor defences here. War crimes are not ok because the other side does it more, and it also shouldn't be a question of sympathy. I am especially disappointed because the actual response is right there: The difference between russia doing war crimes and ukraine doing them, apart from the scale ofc, is the fact that this is most likely not something ordered from high up. It will be down to individuals being responsible for this, but their actions will be clearly separable from the actions of ukraine and their military as a whole.
You're also deliberately choosing to ignore any kind of reasonably construed context that you are completely capable of deducting yourself if you stopped to think about it for two whole seconds. That, frankly, makes me disappointed.
Firstly, gas stations ARE civilian and military use. Military vehicles fills up at gas stations, and blowing up gas stations does have an impact on the fuel shortage overall in the nation, which directly impacts Putin's ability to wage war. Gas stations are legitimate targets, just as much as those warehouses full of military equipment are, even if they are run by civilians workers.
Secondly, you can't just "choose" when and where to attack a target. drones are sent over the border, day and night, 24/7. Targets have to be picked out depending on who got where, which ones made it without being shot down, and what's around to attack if their primary target is no longer there. At no point in time is "Well, it's daytime, so we'll just not attack this legitimate target that'll help the war effort I guess". They can't just "choose" to come back later when they see fit. That might take another 100 drones and 2 weeks to achieve.
It IS a shame that civilians are hit, even if my sympathy for the Russian people is at an all time low right now, but that doesn't mean an attack that killed civilians was automatically a war crime.
|
This is just like talking about Nazis in the UA army, yes they exist, yes it’s bad, and there are way way way more in Russia. But they want you talking about UA ones. I wonder why?
They spend billions on their information campaigns, they work well.
|
We didn't even say that Russia blowing up Ukranian gas stations en masse was a war crime because it wasn't (it's a bad target but that is different).
Ukraine hitting dual use targets with their drones, likely when they are about to run dry, is not a warcrime either.
But it's good to know who are Russian bots/subscribed to Russian bot channels.
|
Hitting a gas station with large lines of exclusively civilian cars is not a legitimate target. In that case, the "collateral damage" is orders of magnitude higher than the damage to Russia's ability to wage war, there's tens of thousands of gas stations, they're an extremely low value target.
While we're at it, the strikes on Wildberries warehouses were purely to inflict economic damage. The pretext of them being a military target because an infinitesimal amount of their activity is to resell shitty tactical vests from Temu to grunts on the frontline is a joke.
I'm okay with both as long as Ukraine seriously attempt to limit civilian casualties (by hitting them at night for example), but we shouldn't excuse and encourge needless civilian deaths.
I understand the rage of Ukraine and cannot expect them to react in a purely rational manner, but I do expect from you guys here to do better than react with a kneejerk "Russian bots" at people like Artesimo or 2Pacalypse for seeing it differently than you.
|
It’s well known that the drones are coming, you can see and hear them. They have no evacuated some of the more recent wild berries, but more often than not the Russians do not turn on there alert system because they are still pretending to be invincible and have no problems. They care more about their optics than their people.
|
On July 28 2026 04:45 Dan HH wrote:
Hitting a gas station with large lines of exclusively civilian cars is not a legitimate target. In that case, the "collateral damage" is orders of magnitude higher than the damage to Russia's ability to wage war, there's tens of thousands of gas stations, they're an extremely low value target.
While we're at it, the strikes on Wildberries warehouses were purely to inflict economic damage. The pretext of them being a military target because an infinitesimal amount of their activity is to resell shitty tactical vests from Temu to grunts on the frontline is a joke.
I'm okay with both as long as Ukraine seriously attempt to limit civilian casualties (by hitting them at night for example), but we shouldn't excuse and encourge needless civilian deaths.
I understand the rage of Ukraine and cannot expect them to react in a purely rational manner, but I do expect from you guys here to do better than react with a kneejerk "Russian bots" at people like Artesimo or 2Pacalypse for seeing it differently than you.
Do we know the location? In some sections of the front there is an acute shortage of fuel and very few stations have any.
|
On July 28 2026 05:11 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2026 04:45 Dan HH wrote:
Hitting a gas station with large lines of exclusively civilian cars is not a legitimate target. In that case, the "collateral damage" is orders of magnitude higher than the damage to Russia's ability to wage war, there's tens of thousands of gas stations, they're an extremely low value target.
While we're at it, the strikes on Wildberries warehouses were purely to inflict economic damage. The pretext of them being a military target because an infinitesimal amount of their activity is to resell shitty tactical vests from Temu to grunts on the frontline is a joke.
I'm okay with both as long as Ukraine seriously attempt to limit civilian casualties (by hitting them at night for example), but we shouldn't excuse and encourge needless civilian deaths.
I understand the rage of Ukraine and cannot expect them to react in a purely rational manner, but I do expect from you guys here to do better than react with a kneejerk "Russian bots" at people like Artesimo or 2Pacalypse for seeing it differently than you. Do we know the location? In some sections of the front there is an acute shortage of fuel and very few stations have any.
The one that started this discussion was from Belgorod
|
On July 28 2026 04:45 Dan HH wrote:
Hitting a gas station with large lines of exclusively civilian cars is not a legitimate target. In that case, the "collateral damage" is orders of magnitude higher than the damage to Russia's ability to wage war, there's tens of thousands of gas stations, they're an extremely low value target.
While we're at it, the strikes on Wildberries warehouses were purely to inflict economic damage. The pretext of them being a military target because an infinitesimal amount of their activity is to resell shitty tactical vests from Temu to grunts on the frontline is a joke.
I'm okay with both as long as Ukraine seriously attempt to limit civilian casualties (by hitting them at night for example), but we shouldn't excuse and encourge needless civilian deaths.
I understand the rage of Ukraine and cannot expect them to react in a purely rational manner, but I do expect from you guys here to do better than react with a kneejerk "Russian bots" at people like Artesimo or 2Pacalypse for seeing it differently than you.
This is incredibly dumb. If you weren't allowed to hit targets because civilians were nearby, you wouldn't be able to wage war. You'd just put civilians on every military installation and then shout "war crime!" every time anything was attacked
You can't just willy nilly decide what a war crime is. Hitting military use targets, even if there are civilians there, is not a war crime under any ethical or judicial rule. Stop making up new rules "because it feels bad". Gas station are used by the military, and the economic and logistical effects directly impacts Russia's ability to wage war. It's a legit target in any sense of the meaning
And again, to repeat myself, you can't just "decide to hit at night". The drone is there when the drone is there. You can't "come back to your target later". You might spend a week and hundreds of drones getting a single one through. Not taking the shots you get is not an option when your own country and fellow men is on the line.
If Russia didn't want to risk the lives of their people, they could have chosen not to invade. Ukraine isn't in a position where they can decide to play nice. Their literal existence is at risk
|
On July 28 2026 05:11 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2026 04:45 Dan HH wrote:
Hitting a gas station with large lines of exclusively civilian cars is not a legitimate target. In that case, the "collateral damage" is orders of magnitude higher than the damage to Russia's ability to wage war, there's tens of thousands of gas stations, they're an extremely low value target.
While we're at it, the strikes on Wildberries warehouses were purely to inflict economic damage. The pretext of them being a military target because an infinitesimal amount of their activity is to resell shitty tactical vests from Temu to grunts on the frontline is a joke.
I'm okay with both as long as Ukraine seriously attempt to limit civilian casualties (by hitting them at night for example), but we shouldn't excuse and encourge needless civilian deaths.
I understand the rage of Ukraine and cannot expect them to react in a purely rational manner, but I do expect from you guys here to do better than react with a kneejerk "Russian bots" at people like Artesimo or 2Pacalypse for seeing it differently than you. Do we know the location? In some sections of the front there is an acute shortage of fuel and very few stations have any.
Not even just the front. There's videos showing long lines and shortages all the way up to Moscow
|
Canada11607 Posts
I don't think blowing up a gas station with lines of civilians is a good target.
However, unless there is evidence that there is a deliberate campaign to do so rather than a one off, I don't think it bears mentioning.
We know about it very easily because we have video footage. But few armies go through an entire war entirely clean (Canadians in WWI and WWII), but it does matter if there is deliberate effort to brutalize civilians vs units going rogue on occasion. So framing this as though Ukraine is starting to join in with what Russia is doing or that targetting the Wildberry warhehouses is cause for losing optimism, I think is a very bad equivocation of the two sides and simply not true.
|
On July 28 2026 09:23 Falling wrote:
I don't think blowing up a gas station with lines of civilians is a good target.
However, unless there is evidence that there is a deliberate campaign to do so rather than a one off, I don't think it bears mentioning.
We know about it very easily because we have video footage. But few armies go through an entire war entirely clean (Canadians in WWI and WWII), but it does matter if there is deliberate effort to brutalize civilians vs units going rogue on occasion. So framing this as though Ukraine is starting to join in with what Russia is doing or that targetting the Wildberry warhehouses is cause for losing optimism, I think is a very bad equivocation of the two sides and simply not true.
I understand if my bad grammar/articulation was confusing. But for me, the losing of optimism was more about the general dehumanization of warfare (at the individual to largest scales) as it increasingly moves from "IRL" to "screens" as well as the general broadening of what casual observers identify as acceptable civilian casualties.
It wasn't specifically about the by the books legality (especially given my perspective on "international law"), strategic justification, or moral rationalizations for Ukrainians killing the equivalent of innocent Amazon workers/people getting gas on their way to regular jobs like people here have or whatever.
|
Brother if you thought that war wasn't completly dehumanized after WW1 you're completely lost. America firebombed a lot more people than it ever nuked but few people give a shit about that.
Russia started this war entierly on its own, the responsiblity of where it goes is on them.
|
Wild berries is likely one of the best targets for causing maximum damage with least civilian casualties. That wild berries chose to not evacuate their warehouses, and the cities to not let the populace know with air raid sirens or app warnings is on the Russians. The first one you can put those squarely on Ukraine but that it took 6 before they started evacuating shows how little Russia cares about their people.
Edit: even the first one, unless you think it’s just really good timing that they changed the terms of decide to not insure inventory struck by drone one week before it happened.
|
On July 28 2026 10:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2026 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 09:23 Falling wrote:
I don't think blowing up a gas station with lines of civilians is a good target.
However, unless there is evidence that there is a deliberate campaign to do so rather than a one off, I don't think it bears mentioning.
We know about it very easily because we have video footage. But few armies go through an entire war entirely clean (Canadians in WWI and WWII), but it does matter if there is deliberate effort to brutalize civilians vs units going rogue on occasion. So framing this as though Ukraine is starting to join in with what Russia is doing or that targetting the Wildberry warhehouses is cause for losing optimism, I think is a very bad equivocation of the two sides and simply not true. I understand if my bad grammar/articulation was confusing. But for me, the losing of optimism was more about the general dehumanization of warfare (at the individual to largest scales) as it increasingly moves from "IRL" to "screens" as well as the general broadening of what casual observers identify as acceptable civilian casualties. It wasn't specifically about the by the books legality (especially given my perspective on "international law"), strategic justification, or moral rationalizations for Ukrainians killing the equivalent of innocent Amazon workers/people getting gas on their way to regular jobs like people here have or whatever. Brother if you thought that war wasn't completly dehumanized after WW1 you're completely lost. America firebombed a lot more people than it ever nuked but few people give a shit about that. Russia started this war entierly on its own, the responsiblity of where it goes is on them.
What do you suppose was the motive behind the Geneva Conventions?
|
On July 28 2026 06:53 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2026 04:45 Dan HH wrote:
Hitting a gas station with large lines of exclusively civilian cars is not a legitimate target. In that case, the "collateral damage" is orders of magnitude higher than the damage to Russia's ability to wage war, there's tens of thousands of gas stations, they're an extremely low value target.
While we're at it, the strikes on Wildberries warehouses were purely to inflict economic damage. The pretext of them being a military target because an infinitesimal amount of their activity is to resell shitty tactical vests from Temu to grunts on the frontline is a joke.
I'm okay with both as long as Ukraine seriously attempt to limit civilian casualties (by hitting them at night for example), but we shouldn't excuse and encourge needless civilian deaths.
I understand the rage of Ukraine and cannot expect them to react in a purely rational manner, but I do expect from you guys here to do better than react with a kneejerk "Russian bots" at people like Artesimo or 2Pacalypse for seeing it differently than you. This is incredibly dumb. If you weren't allowed to hit targets because civilians were nearby, you wouldn't be able to wage war. You'd just put civilians on every military installation and then shout "war crime!" every time anything was attacked You can't just willy nilly decide what a war crime is. Hitting military use targets, even if there are civilians there, is not a war crime under any ethical or judicial rule. Stop making up new rules "because it feels bad". Gas station are used by the military, and the economic and logistical effects directly impacts Russia's ability to wage war. It's a legit target in any sense of the meaning And again, to repeat myself, you can't just "decide to hit at night". The drone is there when the drone is there. You can't "come back to your target later". You might spend a week and hundreds of drones getting a single one through. Not taking the shots you get is not an option when your own country and fellow men is on the line. If Russia didn't want to risk the lives of their people, they could have chosen not to invade. Ukraine isn't in a position where they can decide to play nice. Their literal existence is at risk
They definitely measure civilisation casualties when they are weighting between targets.
Impossible to actually draw a line but there's a proportionality.
Ukraine still have plenty of targets they can aim at.
|
On July 28 2026 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2026 09:23 Falling wrote:
I don't think blowing up a gas station with lines of civilians is a good target.
However, unless there is evidence that there is a deliberate campaign to do so rather than a one off, I don't think it bears mentioning.
We know about it very easily because we have video footage. But few armies go through an entire war entirely clean (Canadians in WWI and WWII), but it does matter if there is deliberate effort to brutalize civilians vs units going rogue on occasion. So framing this as though Ukraine is starting to join in with what Russia is doing or that targetting the Wildberry warhehouses is cause for losing optimism, I think is a very bad equivocation of the two sides and simply not true. I understand if my bad grammar/articulation was confusing. But for me, the losing of optimism was more about the general dehumanization of warfare (at the individual to largest scales) as it increasingly moves from "IRL" to "screens" as well as the general broadening of what casual observers identify as acceptable civilian casualties. It wasn't specifically about the by the books legality (especially given my perspective on "international law"), strategic justification, or moral rationalizations for Ukrainians killing the equivalent of innocent Amazon workers/people getting gas on their way to regular jobs like people here have or whatever.
You look at every opportunity to paint the Ukrainians as the bad guys. You've been doing that throughout this whole thread. Perhaps it's time to do some self-reflection.
|
On July 28 2026 11:30 Billyboy wrote:
Wild berries is likely one of the best targets for causing maximum damage with least civilian casualties. That wild berries chose to not evacuate their warehouses, and the cities to not let the populace know with air raid sirens or app warnings is on the Russians. The first one you can put those squarely on Ukraine but that it took 6 before they started evacuating shows how little Russia cares about their people.
Edit: even the first one, unless you think it’s just really good timing that they changed the terms of decide to not insure inventory struck by drone one week before it happened.
Agreed, (large) logistical warehouses are great targets. They increase the logistical burden on the entire system by making trucks, trains and people usage go up per goods shipped throughout the entire economy. If you need to ship a refrigerator another 200km that means you have 200km less logistical capacity in the system for military usage (simplified). The supply chain into a military factory is not done by military logistics in normal cases.
|
On July 28 2026 03:25 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2026 00:31 Artesimo wrote:On July 27 2026 18:28 Excludos wrote:On July 27 2026 03:39 2Pacalypse- wrote:On July 26 2026 18:21 Simberto wrote:On July 26 2026 10:13 Falling wrote:Waging economic warfare by bombing industrial production and commercial distribution centres to push out an invading army that targets civilians (human safari in Kherson), residential buildings, clearly marked red-cross vehicles, and tortures prisoners is well within the bounds of an ethically run war. Russia still has many more young men to feed into the meat grinder, so to save lives (including Russian) it's better to grind their economy to a halt any way they can-- like targetting the shadow fleet. It may be difficult to be optimistic about the future but the way Ukraine has run their war has been inspiring. I am reminded of a video of a surrendered Russian soldier who asks: "Will you take us prisoner or kill us?" Ukrainian soldier: "Prisoner. We are not you." Just so. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1uhbmin/russian_soldier_asked_ukrainian_soldier_will_you/ I think part of this is that Ukraine is very dependent on outside support. If you start committing war crimes, people in other countries start to ask if they really should continue supporting you. Meanwhile, if you act like the good guys, other countries can feel good sending you military equipment. From the Ukrainian perspective, war crimes and targetting civilians would be a strategically really bad idea. And i assume leadership knows that, and are on top of not getting bad press. Yeah, which is why it's a really bad timing that Ukraine started committing war crimes themselves it seems: https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2080084259134406875You could say one video might be a fluke or a false flag operation, but seems like there are multiple videos that Ukranians posted themselves where they slam drones into civilian cars at gas stations, mostly in Belgorod region. It's such an unforced error too, because now you're just giving munition with no real rebuttals to the other side, which is something they more or less didn't have for the past 5 years. I'm not saying it's great, but I'd argue that gas stations are legitimate targets, and it's a shame if there happen to be civilians there when you hit it I am not sure about that. As far as I understand it, there are civilian targets which are never ok to be deliberately targeted, dual use targets which are both used in a civilian as well as military capacity (like a power plant that both supplies a military base, weapons factory etc. and civilian housing) which are bit more difficult to assess, and purely military targets. Both military and dual use targets are usually fair game, but with both you always have to consider collateral damage. Blowing up a gas station in the middle of the day with a bunch of civilians queued up and no military vehicles in sight when you could just as well have done that in the night is... problematic at best I would say. Considering if "there happen to be civilians there when you hit it" is part of what you have to consider and if you don't, or what you accept as acceptable collateral is wildly disproportional, then you are entering war crime territory. I am not surprised but still disappointed to see such poor defences here. War crimes are not ok because the other side does it more, and it also shouldn't be a question of sympathy. I am especially disappointed because the actual response is right there: The difference between russia doing war crimes and ukraine doing them, apart from the scale ofc, is the fact that this is most likely not something ordered from high up. It will be down to individuals being responsible for this, but their actions will be clearly separable from the actions of ukraine and their military as a whole. You're also deliberately choosing to ignore any kind of reasonably construed context that you are completely capable of deducting yourself if you stopped to think about it for two whole seconds. That, frankly, makes me disappointed. Firstly, gas stations ARE civilian and military use. Military vehicles fills up at gas stations, and blowing up gas stations does have an impact on the fuel shortage overall in the nation, which directly impacts Putin's ability to wage war. Gas stations are legitimate targets, just as much as those warehouses full of military equipment are, even if they are run by civilians workers. Secondly, you can't just "choose" when and where to attack a target. drones are sent over the border, day and night, 24/7. Targets have to be picked out depending on who got where, which ones made it without being shot down, and what's around to attack if their primary target is no longer there. At no point in time is "Well, it's daytime, so we'll just not attack this legitimate target that'll help the war effort I guess". They can't just "choose" to come back later when they see fit. That might take another 100 drones and 2 weeks to achieve. It IS a shame that civilians are hit, even if my sympathy for the Russian people is at an all time low right now, but that doesn't mean an attack that killed civilians was automatically a war crime.
I am sorry I did not mean to single you out and might not have been clear enough in what I mean. I am not ignoring anything, I should have been clearer: I do not know where gas stations sit on the civilian/dual use scale and did not intend to make any judgement on that. I would hope that just because a military vehicle CAN refuel there doesn't automatically make it dual use with all gloves off, otherwise schools would be a military target because soldiers could be housed in there, clinics because soldiers could be treated there, you local playground because soldiers could be trained there and so on. But maybe it is and the rules are a bit arbitrary. They already are in the sense that the more urgent and important a target is, the more unrestrained you can be in your action, some targets are somewhat arbitrary never ok, like damns, and ofc there are no clear cut guidelines since war is a fuzzy thing.
It doesn't really matter for my concern though as even with fully military targets, you are supposed to consider collateral damage. I am not really concerned with bombing gas stations, I would be less concerned with bombing a gas station with civilians present while military vehicles being refuelled there, but I am definitely concerned with bombing a gas station with civilians present and no military to be seen. There is no urgency there, it costs you almost nothing to just wait for the night. There simply is no reason not to do this at night where it would be even harder to intercept the drones, aside from the terror value. Either you have the capacity to do so, or maybe you should look for better targets to spend your resources on than a gas station with a bunch of civilians lines up. You cannot tell me that ukraine can't manage to plan this differently, given how they manage to hit far more coordinated and sophisticated attacks. You act as if the drone manifested there by happenstance and now you gotta seize the opportunity instead of it being send there deliberately. This also isn't some ww2 bombing scenario where you go "ah damn, don't have the fuel to return with these bombs so off they go. Tough luck for anyone down there". Again, sending them at night would probably be easier if all you cared about was taking out that gas station.
I also did not say this is a war crime definitely, I definitely see it as problematic and said as much, which I find hard to see reason not to agree with. I assume the part of "War crimes are not ok" set you off, but that was in response to what to me felt like people taking the line of "so what if this is a war crime, russia does it more" and "well its war, what do you want", as in my objection being they might think this is a war crime and still don't care for absolutely horrible reasons. Meanwhile, my reasoning of "even if this is war crimes, I don't think this can be put on ukraine/their military as a whole and instead is individual units/commanders misbehaving" lets you still fully support ukraine without losing any integrity, something I find very important with matters like these.
I think 2Pacalypse- summed it up best in his original mentioning of this: It's such an unforced error, or at least seems like that to me. That is what annoys me with it. Its the same like when they just couldn't manage to not have some dumbfuck soldier with nazi insignia in their photo ops: I don't think either reflected on ukraine or their military as a whole, I think I understand some of the reasoning behind it, but I do not think it was worth it or even advisable and doing it the better way would have cost you almost nothing.
But anyway, thanks for the reminder why I stopped participating in this thread much. And after having typed this all out I find it pretty rich of you to accuse me of deliberately ignoring something. I don't think my post was that badly written that missing just about everything I said can be justified, but I am just gonna assume you felt singled out by my post and it was just retaliation and leave it at that.
|
On July 28 2026 17:53 Artesimo wrote:
It doesn't really matter for my concern though as even with fully military targets, you are supposed to consider collateral damage. I am not really concerned with bombing gas stations, I would be less concerned with bombing a gas station with civilians present while military vehicles being refuelled there, but I am definitely concerned with bombing a gas station with civilians present and no military to be seen. There is no urgency there, it costs you almost nothing to just wait for the night. There simply is no reason not to do this at night where it would be even harder to intercept the drones, aside from the terror value. Either you have the capacity to do so, or maybe you should look for better targets to spend your resources on than a gas station with a bunch of civilians lines up. You cannot tell me that ukraine can't manage to plan this differently, given how they manage to hit far more coordinated and sophisticated attacks. You act as if the drone manifested there by happenstance and now you gotta seize the opportunity instead of it being send there deliberately. This also isn't some ww2 bombing scenario where you go "ah damn, don't have the fuel to return with these bombs so off they go. Tough luck for anyone down there". Again, sending them at night would probably be easier if all you cared about was taking out that gas station.
I think you are dunning krugering this whole situation way too much. No, they can't just do all their attacks at night. No, they can't just choose to come back later. We have zero insight into how this drone came into this area. It could have been sent as a recon drone, it could have been sent as a 2 week long operation where this one out of 100 drones got through the web, it could have been a drone meant for a truck which was no longer there, it might be a decoy drone which wasn't shot down, or it might be that they planned to hit the gas station from the very beginning. None of that matters. Pretending Ukraine has this amazing breathing room of just being able to come back at a later time, while they are fighting tooth and nail to struggle to exist as a country, isn't arguing in good faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
