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.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Heads up, you're feeding an engagement-baiting troll whose only goals are to waste your time and energy, and gaslight you
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
