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.
I disagree. I think that respecting the Geneva convention is a reasonable restriction to impose, and it also does not hinder in any way the ability to win the war, as it specifically protects only people who do not participate in the war.
Say you don’t understand the Geneva convention without saying you don’t understand the Geneva convention.
Ukraine broke Geneva convention rules? How and when exactly?
How is this relevant?
A: But really there’s no reason whatsoever to put restrictions on the smaller weaker country who is being invaded. War is hell.
B: I think there are good reasons to impose the restriction of the Geneva convention on Ukraine, even if is being invaded.
It’s an abstract consideration of the moral legitimacy of an invaded country to act without any restriction (according to OC) or not (according to me). Whether it did break or not the rules of Geneva convention is a completely separate debate. Here the topic is: is it reasonable or not to expect Ukraine, as invaded country, to act within the limits of the Geneva convention?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.