From the founder of Wildberries ā¦
āThere are no words to describe all the feelings and emotions caused by the attacks on ordinary people, on our employees, on us, who are simply doing our jobs,ā she wrote on Telegram. āBut these situations demonstrate the most important thing: we must continue to do what we do for the benefit of people.ā
They literally address it in the article. Military hardware and drone components were readily available on the website even after the attacks. What else do you want to see?
Besides, itās not like Russia has given a shit about war crimes since they invaded. They commit them daily. Acting like Ukraine should be following the rules that Russia has torn to shreds for 4-years isā¦idiotic.
Not sure if your posts are bad faith/intentional misdirection or simple stupidity. Either way, itās not a good look for you. Do better.
Like I said, that these things were going to the Russian army in significant numbers and that the warehouses bombed included them in significant numbers.
Thatās not how international law (or, for that matter, basic morality) works. Zionists use this same rhetoric to justify Israeli war crimes, but itās wrong then and itās wrong now. International law (and, again, basic morality) applies to all countries independent of whether anyone else is following it, because bombing civilians is bad period and shouldnāt be done unless thereās no alternative. Charred bodies of innocents arenāt any less abhorrent when theyāre Russian; if international law/basic morality only applies when the other side is the Bad Guyā¢ then we might as well toss the whole damn thing in the trash. Terror bombing was and is bad even when done to Nazis, or we should all be celebrating 9/11.
Naive and factually incorrect. What a combo. There are clear exceptions for dual-use targets under the Geneva convention, such as a logistics warehouse being used to supply the military with their equipment. There is also a commonly accepted concept of āreciprocal forceā or āself-defenseā in pretty much any reasonable moral code in this world. No one expects people to just keep getting punched in the face and sit there quietly without responding in kind. This type of attack would definitely qualify considering what Russia has been doing to Ukraine for the last 4-years.
Ukraine is at least trying to follow international law and be as good faith of an actor as they can in war time. Russia has lit the Geneva convention on fire and pissed in all of our faces for more than a decade, but sure, they are equally abhorrent parties in your eyes. Get a grip and learn some nuance. The world is complex and full of gray area. Donāt be such a simpleton.
Except exactly zero evidence has been produced that thatās the case here, which is my whole damn problem with this.
Youāre uncritically believing the words of the president of a country at war but Iām the simpleton, rightā¦
You can literally go to their website, run a search yourself and see that they are clearly selling the claimed dual purpose components/equipment on their website. Itās all in the article and can be independently verified in less than five minutes. I guarantee that the Ukranian government and their intelligence partners have additional information beyond what is publicly available. If they are being sold in their website, where do you think they are being stored? Use your brain and some critical thought, if you are even capable.
Youāre either a bad faith actor or too dumb to exercise your brain for even brief periods. Probably both. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere. Thanks.
Stop using the āterrorismā bullshit. The term is next to useless. Generally, as used today, terrorism is when a non-state actor uses violence. Thatās it. Police are, by definition, terrorists, but we donāt use the term for that. At the end of the day, war is terrorism. All war. Acting like you can be morally perfect in war is a total misunderstanding of war. When itās over, the survivors can figure out what was wrong. If Ukraine doesnāt survive then there is nothing to be held accountable for. Survival comes first.
Is this an ideal target? Obviously not. However, there are no ideal targets. There are targets of opportunity. You can choose to pass on an opportunity, but if you do that and it causes more people to die, thatās a mistake. I think this is a fairly good target, because it puts pressure on the people of Russia. In the end, itās them who are going to have to end this invasion. Putin wonāt. Theyāre going to have to force an end, and theyāre going to have to face consequences before they do that. They can end it whenever they want though.
I agree, but I also didnāt say āterrorism;ā I used the far more precise term of terror bombing, meaning āthe strategic bombing of civilian targets without military value, in the hope of damaging an enemyās morale.ā
There are targets of opportunity, but should have enough military value to make the opportunity worth the moral cost.
Again literally Zionist rhetoric. Is international law (or the basic morality meant to be portrayed by it) just for show or what? Wasnāt killing civilians bad? If āputting pressure on the enemyā is enough justification to bomb something then, again, we should be celebrating 9/11. Otherwise Ukraine has the right to defend itself, but notābarring clear military valueāto bomb online retailers. And in any case, this lesson has been learned time and time again since WWII; terror bombing only galvanizes the enemy population and absolutely doesnāt compel surrender. Putin couldnāt ask for better propaganda.
This is more strategic bombing than terror bombing though. Terror bombing would be, for example, targeting apartments, or things like that. This is a warehouse that is used by a company supplying goods to the military. The fact it also damages civilian quality of life is just a bonus (in my opinion, or negative if you think civilians shouldnāt face consequences).
Just because itās similar to rhetoric Zionists use doesnāt make it Zionist rhetoric. The largest difference is the Zionists are the invaders, as the Russians are in this case. If Palestinians can fight back like the Ukrainians are here, to try to force Israel to back off, then Iām in favor of it.
Basically, yes, and it always has been. Russia didnāt agree to the same rules, so Ukraine shouldnāt have to follow them when defending from them. Itās like if a soccer/football team plays against a rugby team. If they donāt have the same rules, it isnāt really going to work out. The rules are there so, after itās over, we can decide who to hold accountable.
If Ukraine follows all the international laws then theyāre fucked. For example, antipersonnel mines are banned by international law. Meanwhile Russia is throwing them all over the place. Should Ukraine, the defenders, not be allowed to use that tool to prevent advances? Sure, the effects after are horrible, but the effects of Ukraine losing would be worse, and theyāre there anyway because of Russia.
I agree. Thatās why Ukraine hasnāt done so. They could hit apartments in Moscow, like Russia is doing, but that wouldnāt serve their goal. The goal is to put pressure on civilians. Itās not like they targeted civilians here. They targeted a warehouse. Iām not sure how many dies, if any, but it wonāt be a large number. It will prevent or slow down purchases though. It wonāt really galvanize them, rather itāll annoy them. If they wanted to hurt civilians they would have hit a power station near Moscow.
Not necessarily. Like I said elsewhere in this thread, if a company makes guns for the enemy military and toys children in different factories, only the gun factory would be legal to bomb; bombing the toy factory would still be a war crime despite the shared ownership. Similarly, itās on Ukraine to prove that the warehouses they bombed were being actively used to supply the Russian military in quantities justifying the loss of life and property.
Civilians, who are (especially in a colonial autocracy like Russia) third parties not directly involved in the conflict, donāt suddenly have their rights waived because the armed gang ruling over them are pieces of shit. Thatās collective punishment, and even without international law itās the sort of thing we always recognize as psychopathic when done to anyone we donāt already hate. āPeople shouldnāt be punished for things they didnāt doā is ethics 101. A given rule could be up for discussion if sticking to it would seriously hamper Ukraineās war effort, but thatās not whatās going on here. Either the Wildberries warehouses bombed were significant contributors to Russian logistics, in which case theyāre legal to bomb anyway, or theyāre not and bombing them does nothing to advance the Ukrainian war effort, and the Ukrainian military, as the ones doing the bombing in this case, have a responsibility to prove the former is the case.
Things that would make one fucked if not done are generally not banned under international law. As for your example, anti-personnel mines arenāt banned under international law. Thereās a treaty to ban them, but thatās a different story.
The article doesnāt give total numbers, but it does list plenty of death and injury.
Also, itās not like ruining peopleās livelihoods is exactly kosher without clear military value.
Things being on fire tends to galvanize people against the people setting things on fire even if nobody was dying (which is not the case here), and you can bet that Russian media will amplify the damage done to small businesses.
Then actions taken primarily in service of that goal are war crimes, plain and simple. Anything negative with āciviliansā in it as the primary goal of a military action is pretty much guaranteed to be a war crime, because protecting civilians from armed reprisal is half the point of international law.
Or it could be that they couldnāt find an excuse to bomb those. Besides, theyāre bombing oil infrastructure instead, which seems to have pretty much the same effect (while still having a clear military purpose).
I donāt agree with this. The company is providing funding to the military, which is made through sales. Part of the war is cutting off this funding. The fact theyāre also distributing weapons just makes them a particularly nice target, but I think attacking the oligarchs is good regardless, as theyāre part of the larger system thatās doing the invasion. Yeah, they shouldnāt be attacking targets that intentionally harm civilians with no other motive, but they should be targeting the larger strategic assets that fund the war. A kinetic embargo, so to speak.
I didnāt say they need to be punished. Youāre misinterpreting what I said. I said they need to suffer consequences. This isnāt to rehabilitate them or bring justice, like a punishment is meant to. Itās because they need to rise up against the oligarchy. Itās not a punishment. Itās an incentive. It isnāt because they did something wrong and need to be served justice. Itās because the war needs to end and Putin isnāt going to end it; they must. If they get to live their lives undisturbed by the war, while their nation makes those across the border a living hell, they have no reason to overthrow their leaders. If their lives are falling apart then they do.
What do you think international law is? Itās a bunch of treaties. It isnāt some thing that just exists. Itās agreements by other nations. And no, it sometimes does make you fucked. For example, Ukraine would not be allowed to build nuclear weapons, despite it almost certainly offering them protection. Meanwhile Russia is allowed to have them and build more. International law is mostly a fiction. Morality we can discuss, but international law is not just some descrete set of rules that you must follow. Itās guidelines, and going over the blurry edge is generally allowed. Hell, even when you go way too far (Israel) there are often very few, if any, consequences.
If you want to discuss morality, then we can have a discussion. If bombing these warehouses brings an end to the invasion quicker, and fewer people die because of it, isnāt it morally justified? It isnāt like youāre cutting off their water and making thousands suffer and die. Youāre cutting off supply for businesses, and maybe a few civilians die (a shit ton more soldiers are dying every day, many drafted who would be civilians by choice). Itās a morally justified target from most viewpoints I can think of. The only one that wouldnāt justify it is if only actions matter and not consequences, aka deontologism. This might be what you follow, but I donāt think many modern people do. Most people think the consequences matter.
War isnāt kosher! I donāt know if youāve never seen what war actually looks like, or never thought about it, but war is fucked up. No one gets to sit on moral high ground in war. You kill the other person or you die; sometimes both. Itās brutal and disgusting, and anyone saying it needs to follow some strict moral ruleset is going to be dead on the battlefield. If you can do something that prevents more of āthe good guysā from dying, especially if it also prevents more of the bad guys from fighting, itās a good thing.
You know what galvanizes them even more? Telling them theyāre fighting a righteous battle and then continuing life as normal. If they see that their lives are at risk, not just some far off enemy, then they will eventually take a stand. Letting them live in peace and not have the war come to them will not force them to end the war. When has that ever happened?
No it isnāt! Itās to prevent unnecessary damage. Civilians have certain protections, but international law does not shield them from the consequences of a war their nation is waging. Hereās the relevant article. If it isnāt indiscriminate and has any military value (and is not a select few explicit civilian structures) then itās a valid target. To say it isnāt you need to prove that they knew it didnāt have any military purpose, which isnāt going to happen.
Yes, those have a clear military purpose. They are bombing power infrastructure in Crimea, so I think they could find the excuse if they wanted to. There, itās pretty damn valid, as the place is being put under siege. The power is being used for military installations, and the civilians have a path to leave. They could use the same excuse elsewhere, but they arenāt.
This isnāt going anywhere so Iām gonna disengage after this, but I have to say: This is the most fucked up thing Iāve read today. So basically taxpaying businesses, businesses owned by political leaders and/or elites and anything to āincentiviseā locals to stop the war is okay to bomb (hint: the latter is literally terror bombing). Also the Geneva Convention doesnāt matter if itās for a good cause, collective punishment is okay if you donāt call it that and civilian infrastructure is okay to bomb until proven otherwise. And donāt tell me you didnāt say that because this is exactly what you said and being kinda sad about it doesnāt change that. This conversation is over.
What a way to put words into my mouth. Great job. Just because you insist I said that doesnāt mean I did.