Let's get something straight here: do you think it's genocide to remove Russian occupiers by force?
Discussion
No, removing occupiers isn't genocide. Removing *all* Russians from Ukraine is ethnic cleansing. Removing only the ones who entered illegally, as soldiers or settlers, is not. (alternatively it's a permissible form of ethnic cleansing)
Killing all Russians in Ukraine even if they surrender or cooperate with deportation is genocide.
As you know I have no issue with pushing Russians back to the international border and the use of force for that. I take issue with genocidal sauce you frequently add.
and there is ethnic cleansing in Ukraine?
Of course you can kill Russian criminals who have illegally entered Ukraine. You don't need to ask nicely for them to stop or give them a chance to leave. This is a war, with a large scale invasion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with just killing them. And doing so will in the long run save Ukrainian lives, as the people evil enough to take part in this invasion will probably come back in a future invasion. Better to kill them now if possible.
It is absurd how you keep trying to impose conditions on Ukraine taking their country back from a genocidal invasion, protecting deeply evil people in the process.
If we were talking about a few hundred people it'd be a different discussion. But this is a massive invasion that will be very difficult to reverse. It's totally ok in the extraordinary circumstances of war to ignore usual legal principals of due process to get the job done. Giving ~1 million Russians full trials would bankrupt any county.
And again, this gets back to my original point: right now tens of millions of Russians are meaningfully contributing to their genocidal war against Ukraine. These people are criminals. In the circumstances of war, with the numbers involved, it is impossible to adhere to normal standards of legal processes and bring each to justice. But it is feasible to stop the war by killing them.
Every working Russian is a valid military target, and as is always true in war, collateral damage is acceptable. It would, for example, be perfectly justified and ethical to use nuclear weapons to wipe out Russian cities to put an end to this war and future Russian aggression. It doesn't matter how many die in the process: the working Russian population are all valid military targets. If they want to live, the onus is on them to either leave Russia, or stop the war.
Right now Ukraine is being coerced into not taking effective measures to end the war that it could due to absurd humanitarian concerns. Ukrainians are being forced to give up their lives for the sake of Russian criminals. It is absurd that the lights are on in Moscow right now – Ukraine could have taken out the Russian electricity grid. But they haven't been allowed to. Sure, many Russians would die in the process. But that's absolutely fine.
First time i do not agree with your opinions Todd.
Most of the time, i agree with your opinions on that conflict since im kinda close to it. But actully these takes you take right now are kinda too much for me. Deffo you will be smarter then me, also i respect you because your work for bitcoin community is crazy and i could never do it with my knowledge. But at the same time this takes are too much...
It is different to defend against the hordes that were earlier in history than to defend against the soldiers that just had to go.
Ukrainians know this and that's why not every soldier who enters their territory with a weapon in his hand is killed. I'd love to see you if you suddenly found yourself in "armed forces training" bcs you want to protect you family and than general told you, now there will be an attack, anyone who doesn't go forward will be shot. Simple as that... So what would you do?
Well, if you're not crazy you'd surrender in Ukraine and try to remotely help your family, but if you're crazy you'd go kill and steal in Ukraine and then get killed bcs Ukraine is not gonna lose.
It's simple, but for a lot of guys, desertion was the only option. Luckily the Ukrainians don't see it the way you do, because then the Legion of Freedom to Russia and so on probably wouldn't have come into being, because they wouldn't have had the opportunity to come into being..You know, these legions are from deserted Russians.
I'd like to know what you would do if this was happening in your country. Respect to all the Russians who are not afraid to stand up to the usurper, but again, let's remember that a normal citizen, influenced by history, will not be interested in what his usurper is doing until he finds himself in that war or his son dies there.
On the other hand, instead of killing Russians who don't kill anybody, we should convince Russians to kill this MF, this way what we doing, we are just creating another generation that won't like the west because we killed their dad for example. War has no winners, but let's be people at least please, not animals.
I think part of our disagreement in the assessment of whether conventional military means are enough to default Russia. I think giving Ukraine 5x the weapons and permission to use them on any non-nuclear military (industrial complex) target should do the trick. This is also what actual military experts like ISW advocate for.
We also asses the risk of nuclear war differently. I suppose you like caves anyway :-)
And then there's issue of how Ukraine needs to behave in order to keep receiving support at all. If they start behaving as badly as the Russians, the EU stops supporting them. Unlike in the US, there is strong popular support amongst Europeans to help Ukraine, but it's not unconditional.
"if they start behaving as badly as Russians"
That's precisely why I'm pointing out the ethics of this. People like you think that defending yourself effectively from genocide and ensuring good people aren't killed is "behaving badly". I'm doing my part in shifting public opinion.
The fundamental issue you have is the suicidal empathy that's prevalent in left wing thinking. Just like the left thinks it's ethical to prioritize millions of low IQ, high violence, migrants from third world shitholes – destroying our communities in the process and getting woman raped and killed – you'd rather prioritize the lives of psychopathic Russians over Ukrainians (and ultimately, other Europeans and even Canadians in the future if Russia isn't defeated). It's also telling that you also seem to agree with left wing thinking on migration... It's the same phenomenon.
You don't win wars like this with purely defensive strategies. Russia can bomb Ukraine indefinitely with cheap drones if the Russian economy isn't collapsed. Equally, no matter how many weapons you give Ukrainian soldiers, they're still going to die in large numbers using them.
Destroying the Russian economy – which inevitably means killing large numbers of Russian "civilians" – is the strategy that minimizes the deaths of good people. I'm not willing to sacrifice the lives of Ukrainians for the sake of Russians.
Even in Gaza hundreds of IDF soldiers have died trying to defeat Hamas "humanely". The IDF has a far bigger military advantage over Hamas than Ukraine could ever have over Russia. Yet IDF soldiers are still dying in large numbers. It is absurd they international pressure forced Israel to send soldiers in on foot, dying in large numbers. Again, we have suicidal empathy, prioritizing the lives of scrumbags over good people.
Your whole premise here is that Ukrainians are inherently morally superior to Russians, no matter how they behave.
But they behave in the way you advocate they would be objectively worse (nuking Moscow, death penalty on being in Ukraine, etc).
The result would be that civilized non partisan people will either switch sides and support Russia, or ignore the whole conflict because it's just barbarians fighting amongst each other.
* if they behave
The comparison to IDF vs Hamas is nonsensical. Russia isn't going to fight to the last man to stay in Ukraine. Totally different military doctrine.
Not to mention Hamas fighters are motivated by marterdom, paradise and defending their home turf. Russian soldiers are motivated by money, if at all, or forced at gunpoint by superiors. Just apply enouh force, give them an exit and they'll run for it.
...and then they'll come back the next day.
Ukraine puts a lot of effort into killing fleeing Russian soldiers precisely because it's not enough to scare them off. There's literally thousands of videos like this one, of Ukrainian drones hunting down fleeing Russians:
https://video.nostr.build/635a06dba1b6df87d12896185809fea776736ffdc250dfe051461c773fa53e5a.mp4
Not just soldiers either. Ukraine also uses drones to hunt down fleeing vehicles, including vehicles bring used to evacuate wounded (only specially marked, unarmed, ambulances have protection in international law):
https://video.nostr.build/1017a89f946fb697668edcd337a10b871bd1b8738d742ed5e7f39430441ef122.mp4
...and filmed by Russians themselves:
https://video.nostr.build/be2e1ae14d6020d976aa2cfe4d0ff8a5b75138a66653d5546b5d75b4c9151eaa.mp4
It's a very effective way to kill a lot of Russians who would otherwise try to kill Ukrainians later.
Ukrainian forces also regularly kill wounded Russians before they can be rescued. Again, there's literally thousands of videos like this one:
https://video.nostr.build/444c26fe13a2191951d8a390ed8ed4509bbdde3546a8b4ee728b65278780136f.mp4
There's arguments that this type of killing violates international law. But frankly I think that's absurd in this case, and if so, the law is weongy. Ukraine is fighting a defensive war against unjustified extermination. They should not be hobbled by concerns for the aggressors. Given that Russia regularly returns wounded soldiers to the front lines, killing them off when they're vulnerable saves Ukrainian lives.
It's bizarre and frankly disgusting how much you're willing to risk Ukrainian lives for the sake of the scumbags fighting for Russia. A lot more Ukrainians would be dead if they fought the way you want them to.
> and then they'll come back the next day.
For small individual battles yes, but that's not I'm referring to. I'm thinking more of the big routs back in 2022. Those will happen again if Ukraine gets proper support. Which they won't if they follow your advice of committing war crimes.
Upholding the international rules based order is far more impressive than this particular war. I understand how you feel about that, but you're just not impartial.
* more important
Also note how I'm not criticizing Ukraine, I'm criticizing you. I'm sure that once the dust settles it turns out they committed many war crimes, but probably far few than the Russians, there might be mitigating circumstances, etc..
I very much doubt we're going to discover a secret Zelensky plan for genocide.
I'm also not particularly worried that they're suddenly going to get their hands on a nuke and use it against Moscow. Those are pure hypotheticals.
"I very much doubt we're going to discover secret Zelensky plan for genocide"
Given that people widely consider attacks on electricity grids to be potentially attempts at genocide – myself included – I can guarantee you that there is in fact a Zelensky plan for "genocide". Ukraine has been notably reluctant to do real damage to Russia's electricity grid even where they can, and that's very likely to be due to western pressure (unlikely to be by agreement with Russia, as Russia has no issue destroying Ukrainian infrastructure).
If that pressure changes, we'll likely find out that Zelensky had a plan for "genocide" all along as Russian cities are plunged into darkness.
I won't be surprised if that happens in the next two months: Trump is precisely the type of politician that _might_ reverse Biden's opposition to winning.
Afaik deliberately taking out civilian electricity grids is a war crime*. But although it can be part of a genocide, it isn't by itself.
Trump is a wildcard, can go both ways:
1. He just gives Ukraine to Russia
2. He'll indeed approve more aggresive action, especially ones that don't cost US tax payer money
Best we can hope for is probably (2) combined with the EU footing the entire weapons bill, because he does like exporting stuff.
* = and again, wouldn't tip the balance for anyone keeping score
The Gulf War opened with Iraq's civilian electricity grid being deliberately taken out. 28(!!!) power plants were taken out by 218 sorties, along with transformers and switching yards. This also took out most of their water supply and sewage filtration. The country was left without power for years.
I'm fine with that. Coalition forces didn't need to risk their lives making the fight more fair.
Just two days ago, Israel plunged much of Yemen into darkness, destroying two civilian power plants.
Again, I'm ok with that. Yemen is a valid target and there's no easy way for Israel to defeat the Houthies and stop their attacks on Israel. Crushing the economy is a decent option.
...and again, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, power plants and even water treatment plants were targeted. US forces also blew up civilian power plants, including hydroelectric dams, in North Vietnam.
It's absolutely bizarre that you don't think taking out Russia's electricity grid wouldn't "tip the balance". Every drone and missile Russia launches at Ukraine is paid for by the Russian economy. Collapse the economy, and the funding for those drones and missiles dries up.
The Russian economy runs on electricity, like any other economy. Taking out power will certainly cut economic activity.
Russia isn't spending billions taking out Ukraine's power grid just for fun....
...and yet another (indirect) example of a civilian power grid being intentionally taken down: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/world/middleeast/iran-economy-energy-crisis.html
Israel has effectively taken down much of Iran's power grid by blowing up natural gas pipelines which, among other things, fed gas turbine generators.
This is fine by me. Iran is in an aggressive war with Israel, and plenty of other countries. Crushing their economy is fair game, and probably the most effective thing Israel can do to win.
The big routs didn't stop the war. The survivors, and surviving equipment, came back and fought again.
If you were right, this wouldn't have happened. Russia would have felt defeated and given up. Lots of people, including myself, hoped that would happen. But Russia and the Russian population are more persistent than that.
...which Ukraine knew. If Ukraine had thought it was enough to just encourage Russia to retreat, they would have only destroyed the front of the convoys heading to Kyiv, allowing the Russians to turn around and go home.
They didn't do that. Ukrainian forces risked their lives in appalling winter conditions to sneak into the forests around the full length of the convoys. That was how they killed Russians along the full length of the convoys, ensuring thst tens of thousands of Russians and their machines wouldn't be able to retreat to fight another day.
It was a bloodbath, and it's likely that a few thousand Ukrainians died in the process of killing tens of thousands of Russians. But it was worth risking Ukrainian lives because Russia wasn't going to give up so easily. Those men were just going to come back to kill again. Better to kill them while the odds are in your favor; Ukraine is low time preference.
Frankly, by saying we "just need some big routs" to defeat Russia, what you're actually doing is prioritizing the lives of Russians over Ukrainians. You want to see hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians risking their lives going up directly against dug-in Russian forces rather than see the supply chains to those forces cut off. It's absurd to ask Ukrainians to give up their lives so the Russian economy can be spared.
Conversely, if the Russian economy is collapsed, the supply chains feeding those dug in troops collapse with it. Killing and capturing troops that are literally starving, and out of ammo, will cost far fewer Ukrainian lives in the process.
> The big routs didn't stop the war.
Because Ukraine didn't have the means to followed up on them. That's because Europe and the USA have been too slow to give them weapons and permission to use them. One of the things we agree on afaik.
That gave Russia time to build up their defense and since then things have been depressing.
I have no objection to attacking supply lines inside of Russia and I have no desire to save the Russian economy, so I don't know what you're objecting to there.
Like I said, if Russia was magically pushed back to the Ukrainian borders that most likely still wouldn't be the end of the war. Russia can use long range weapons to crush Ukraine without stepping a single foot on Ukraine. Then, once Ukraine is crushed sufficiently, negotiate a one-sided "diplomatic" peace to get Ukraine to surrender.
After all, we did exactly that to Japan in WW2. Hardly any Allied forces actually stepped foot on Japanese homeland soil. We just relentlessly destroyed Japan's economy from the air and sea until they almost unconditionally surrendered.
Equally, we see that in northern Ukraine, better Kyiv and Kharkiv. Pushing Russia back to the border didn't stop the attacks on Ukrainian cities in those areas. Russia continued to relentlessly shell areas near the border, including the entire city of Kharkiv. Indeed, that's one of the reasons why Ukraine has invaded and taken Russian territory: simply to move the fighting far enough past the border that shells are landing on Russian soil rather than Ukrainian cities.
The most likely end to this war is to collapse the Russian economy. Practical ways of doing that will inevitably result in large numbers of Russian "civilians" dying. A lot less Ukrainians will die if the western world accepts that.
> The most likely end to this war is to collapse the Russian economy.
That or a coup, which could be trigger by a big enough rout.
I agree that merely pushing over the border is not enough deterrence.
> Practical ways of doing that will inevitably result in large numbers of Russian "civilians" dying.
Not inevitable, depends on what happens. Again I'm not opposed to the idea of collateral damage. Genocide is defined by intent, not numbers.
E.g. if Ukraine needs to march on Moscow to convince Russia to stop bombing from a distance, and to never invade again, that will probably result in a lot casualties, but wouldn't be illegal or immoral.
If they then go in and murder every non combatant woman and child in Moscow that's a different story. And I have no reason to believe Ukraine would do that.
"and murder every non-combatant [Russian] woman and child"
...which is not an argument I'm making.
Like you say, intent matters. I want to see Russia defeated. It's perfectly ok to intend for Russians involved in the war to die. Which with war at this scale, involves the entire working population because the entire economy is significantly contributing to the war.
I know full well the collateral damage will kill plenty of others in Russia (including some of the many thousands of abducted Ukrainian children, as an example). But, such is war.
Russia simply has no valid argument there. They have zero rights to fire a single bullet in the direction of Ukraine. Every single thing done in aggression against Ukraine is a crime, and everyone supporting that effort is a criminal.
> Your whole premise here is that Ukrainians are inherently morally superior to Russians
Huh? I've repeatedly made very specific, clear, arguments as to why things Russians (and people working for Russia) have done are evil. I do that precisely because I'm making the argument that it is good for those people to be killed. Those arguments have nothing to do with the identity of who does the killing. It is just as ethical for me to assassinate a Russian general as it is for anyone else to do so. The argument isn't that Ukrainians are morally superior and get to do evil things. The argument is that the things they're doing aren't evil because of who they're intending to kill.
Just the other day multiple drones were flown into apartment buildings in Kazan, Russia, a city of 1 million people, ~600km east of Moscow. That city is well known for its large airplane and helicopter manufacturing plants. Obvious, high-value, militarily relevant targets.
The attacks are almost certainly intentional. This residential apartment got hit twice in almost exactly the same spot:
https://video.nostr.build/6976628c2deaa1b60069c94fbd51b854195806236560659ea3ed99dbe3fcc62b.mp4
It doesn't matter who flew those drones into those residential buildings; it's not ethical to do that because "Ukrainians are perfect" or some other nonsense like that. It's ethical to blow up apartments in Russia because the people being killed are evil and need to die. In this case, it's likely that Ukraine had specific intelligence that a high value target (eg a plant manager) lived in that specific apartment. But even there, part of what makes this attack ethical is the majority of the bystanders are Russian adults in an industrial city, who themselves are valid military targets.
You don't need to be Ukrainian to ethically do this attack. It's likely that some of these drone attacks are actually being done by non-ukrainians, launched from other countries bordering Russia, as well as Russia itself; the distances some of these attacks have been done at aren't easily accomplished by launching from Ukraine. Whomever is launching these drones is doing the right thing. Not because of their ethnicity. But because of who is being killed.
> But even there, part of what makes this attack ethical is the majority of the bystanders are Russian adults in an industrial city, who themselves are valid military targets.
No they're not.
This is basic military law stuff that goes back more than a hundred years. There's no justification for inventing your own ethics here.
E.g. Article 25 of the 1889 Hague Convention.
> The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
I.e. you can attack military targets inside a building, and there can be collateral damage, but you can't bomb a building because it's inhabited by Russian civilians.
Notice how "evil person" or "evil people" is not a legal or relevant concept.
Which takes me to Article 50:
> No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.
Apparently Art. 33(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention takes this even further in the direction you don't like:
> the provision is very broad, not limited to judicial penalties, and rules out collective punishment based on the “passive responsibility” of a civilian population
https://opiniojuris.org/2023/10/24/a-short-history-of-the-war-crime-of-collective-punishment/
Not that I disagree with your take generally but considering the age of this “law” and its lack of adherence or non kinetic enforcement since, query whether it is law at all. International law is one of those things that’s law until someone that doesn’t have to follow it doesn’t. Typically something’s a law when it can be enforced through legal rather than military process otherwise it’s hopium
Wars between states have been around for at least five thousand years. These laws are brand spanking new. Genocide was considered completely fine just a few centuries ago. So was collective punishment.
Many of these treaties get violated in the heat of war, and that's understandable. E.g. bombing cities was banned before WWII. Chemical weapons were banned before WWI. When both sides of a conflict violate the rule, it's unlikely there will be any consequences.
All democratic societies can do is systematically take the side of the most ethically behaving party in any conflict without any preference to historical ties and race. And occasionally sue their own government when it violates these rules.
Very lofty, doesn't happen much. Though arguably Ukraine is a good example here. EU countries had much better ties with Russia, that's where the gas came from. But they support Ukraine, even after they blew up the pipeline. That's very encouraging.
This I agree with.
And remember that (earlier incarnations of) Russia were on the side of England / France during WWII and WWI.
Even during the Cold War is was mostly America that had an issue with Russia, western Europe was fine (and completely ignored the suffering in eastern Europe, including present day Ukraine).
It’s always been clown world and always will be and flux is the norm.
To be clear, are you blaming Ukraine for blowing up the Nordstream pipeline?
That's what the WSJ reported. I can always be convinced otherwise based on evidence. I'm happy someone blew it up, don't really care who.
But that's not the point: most people believe it, including western decision makers, and they're fine with it.
Dude, law is not ethics. I would expect a bitcoiner to know that. You're quoting law from 1889 because you can't make an ethical argument.
I'm making an ethical argument: I'm ethically ok with considering working Russians to be military targets because wars at these scales are economic battles. War is no longer just men fighting at close range in small battles like it was in 1889. Wars are primarily fought by machines, at extremely long ranges, attacking the infrastructure and economies that make those machines possible. The most effective weapon Russia has right now isn't the man in the trench. It's the drones that have turned the lights off in most of Ukraine.
If somehow Ukraine could magically kill every single Russian soldier on Ukrainian soil they _still_ wouldn't have won the war. Russia would still be sending long range drones and missiles into Ukraine, destroying infrastructure to crush their economy and force Ukraine to surrender. I've personally experienced those drone and missile attacks myself.
You would rather see Ukraine defeated and the Ukrainian population forced out of them homes and/or subjugated by Russia than have your "morality" offended by killing the Russians who are directly and meaningfully contributing to the destruction of Ukraine. There's a reason why Ukraine is happy to send missiles into Russian apartments, knowing full well that Russian "civilians" will die: Ukraine wants to win. It's the same reason why, as I noted elsewhere, Ukrainian drones kill hundreds of fleeing and wounded Russians every day, aguably in violation of the same international law you're quoting.
It's the same reason why we firebombed Dresden, knowing full well that tens of thousands of Germans would be burned alive in their homes: crushing the German economy was necessary to defeat the Nazis. Even back then, WW2 was an economic war.
You think you are being clever with your high and mighty arguments. But I don't think you don't actually strongly care about Ukraine – and the free world – winning. You care more about your moral superiority.
It's notable how I can't think of any recent time when you've actually said anything publicly about this war that directly supports Ukraine and clearly puts the blame on Russia. You've said some "clever" snarky things about Russian foolishness. But you don't actually take a concrete position of support.
Laws are based on ethics. They can lag a bit, which is very relevant in new fields like Bitcoin, but not when it comes to war.
You have no expertise in this area, as demonstrated by the fact that you didn't even know this treaty (which is more or less still in force). You probably never even read any serious books on the topic.
There's just no reason for me to take you seriously over mainstream thought here. You can't be a credible contrarian on all things. Rolling your own ethical framework for something as ancient and complex as war is ridiculous.
Regarding personal accusations: I live in a NATO country, which means I get drafted if this conflict escalates. Are volunteering for the Ukrainian army? I also pay taxes that go this war effort. I'm not in the habit of virtue signaling support for this or that cause.
> as demonstrated by the fact that you didn't even know this treaty
That's an assumption _you_ are making. I'm quite aware of these treaties and the debates about Ukraine's conduct. As I said, there are plenty of people making legal arguments that Ukraine is violating all kinds of international laws on conduct during warfare. I even gave you a specific example before you wrote the above, the large scale killing of wounded Russians with drones.
Another example is how Ukraine has widely dispersed military infrastructure in the midst of civilian infrastructure to make it harder for Russian forces to find; I personally have seen examples of this in Ukraine, eg military equipment being hidden in unmarked civilian buildings. Amnesty International famously argued that Ukraine should strictly abide by international law and move all military infrastructure away from civilian infrastructure, where it would be easy for Russians to identify. While "law abiding", it would be absurd for Ukraine to actually do this. They'd just lose the war.
Your arguments are quite similar to what Amnesty International was doing there: arguing the letter of law when the ethics and practicality demands something else.
> military equipment being hidden in unmarked civilian buildings
This is grey area stuff, and nowhere near the near the level of what you've been proposing. I do not hold Ukraine to the standard of squeaky cleanness.
I also suspect (and hope) they evacuate at least the immediate vicinity.
As for killing wounded soldiers. Obviously a war crime if it happens as you're stating, but video footage is generally not enough context. But it wouldn't tip the scale for me in favor of Russia.
What I'm proposing is the conduct of the Allies in WW2. We recognized back then that we were fighting an economic war, and freely targeted economic targets of all kinds. Wiping out German and Japanese cities to defeat the Axis was fine; wiping out Russian cities to defeat Russia is also fine.
Saying we were the good guys then, and Ukraine can do the same things now to win, should not be a controversial statement. It is in some circles – when I went to art school some of the teachers were so anti-Western that they were practically engaging in Holocaust denial in their efforts to portray the allies as the bad guys. But those people are nuts.
Re: wounded soldiers, have you actually watched any significant amount of video footage from the war? Dropping grenades on wounded, immobile, Russians is a common activity. There's no secret this is commonly done and it's a topic that gets repeatedly discussed.
Feels to me that your just unwilling to accept that Ukrainians do in fact consider the "laws" of war to not be hard and fast rules that should be adhered to scrupulously at the cost of their own lives.
US troops did that in the war on terror, resulting in tens of thousands killed by restrictive ROEs even with enormous military advantages. Ukrainians don't have that luxury.
Here's another good example of Ukrainians being pragmatic: https://kyivinsider.com/russias-largest-cities-rocked-by-wave-of-coordinated-arson-and-explosions/
Nothing has been admitted officially AFAIK. But it looks like Ukrainian intelligence is defrauding, coercing, blackmailing, and straight up paying Russians on a large scale into committing acts of arson and sabotage, mostly against "civilian" targets.
Is that "clean" and "ethical"? Meh. It's effective. If you can defraud or coerce a desperately poor Russian pensioner into setting a business on fire and causing $100k of damage, that probably translates into something like $20k less tax revenue for the Russian government from the business, and wasting another $20k of government money on a trial and imprisonment. $40k less going to war is probably in the ballpark of what it would take to prevent one Ukrainian casualty.
...and yet another example posted today of a Ukrainian drone killing a wounde, unarmed (his rifle got stolen), Russian left abandoned on a stretcher:
https://video.nostr.build/967ed7a43a78e7f2196a7c149289b8d962bad9a54718f644d38fb0b9bb620cc7.mp4
Fine by me. He was either going to die, or be eventually rescued and likely returned to the front line to kill more Ukrainians.
No reason to abide by this "law of war" when Russia is straight up executing Ukrainian PoWs on a large scale. You're just sacrificing your own men for deeply evil scumbags.
Heads up, you're feeding an engagement-baiting troll whose only goals are to waste your time and energy, and gaslight you
Only politicians want war...none of the citizens want war--they just want to live normal peaceful lives (on both sides).