Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

There's a difference between having your military near civilians (especially in a conflict where civilians are already deeply involved through no fault of their own and the military are needed everywhere) and hiding behind the skirts of women to deliberately draw the fire of the enemy upon them and the ire of the world upon the enemy.

We know that Russia will say that they're attacking a purely military target, while (accidentally or otherwise) essentially committing indiscriminate Total War against the population (not even just selecting those that aren't their own natural supporters). While I don't say this gives Ukrainean forces carte blanche to push the limits of what's expected, I imagine that it pretty much doesn't matter what they do, short of chequerboarding the landscape with easy "We, and we alone are here!" zones from which they have evicted all locals and congregate their equipment to tempt the (inaccurate) weaponry into being thrown towards a very easy target.


No plan survives contact with the enemy. The most idealistic of best wishes to maintain a military/civic separation is likewise prone to being strained to breaking point without any deliberate intention. I don't think I care to judge this point right now, and only history will truly reveal who will have done what to flout convention.

[bloop_bleep]

I mean, it seems to me if eventually you want to control a city (a civilian area) at some point you're going to need troops in the city (the civilian area). All becoming rural farmers, herders, and chumaki again out in the fields while the Russians camp and debaucherize the cities sounds like an idea but I'm not sure if it's practical.

[Strongpoint]

I mean… if the Ukrainian military are stationing troops and materiel near civilians, then yeah. That’s bad.

Yes! It is so much better when there are no Ukrainian troops around Ukrainian civilians, like in Bucha.

All that Amnesty International report did is saying "Yes, just as Russia says, they never target civilians and when they do it is because the evil Ukrainian army uses Ukrainian civilians as meatshields". They are parroting Russian propaganda and frankly speaking I think it is Russian propaganda and someone in Amnesty International got a hefty sum of money for this.

[MaxTheFox]

Fuck Amnesty. The whole organization is a waste of paper, bandwidth, food, water and air.

[hector13]

I mean… if the Ukrainian military are stationing troops and materiel near civilians, then yeah. That’s bad.

Yes! It is so much better when there are no Ukrainian troops around Ukrainian civilians, like in Bucha.

You prefer the Russian war criminals to have plausible deniability? Got it.

All that Amnesty International report did is saying "Yes, just as Russia says, they never target civilians and when they do it is because the evil Ukrainian army uses Ukrainian civilians as meatshields". They are parroting Russian propaganda and frankly speaking I think it is Russian propaganda and someone in Amnesty International got a hefty sum of money for this.

Bullshit, they said no such thing. They said Ukrainian troops were putting civilians at risk by setting up in residential areas, which goes against international conventions to protect civilians in war.

Nowhere in the report did they ever excuse Russia for attacking civilians. If it’s a propaganda job, it’s a piss-poor one, and Putin should ask for a refund.

The ones dancing to the tune of Russian propaganda are, ironically, the Ukrainian military, as them setting up shop near civilians allows the Russians to say “we were aiming for the legitimate military target nearby, honest!”

[Strongpoint]

I mean… if the Ukrainian military are stationing troops and materiel near civilians, then yeah. That’s bad.

Yes! It is so much better when there are no Ukrainian troops around Ukrainian civilians, like in Bucha.

All that Amnesty International report did is saying "Yes, just as Russia says, they never target civilians and when they do it is because the evil Ukrainian army uses Ukrainian civilians as meatshields". They are parroting Russian propaganda and frankly speaking I think it is Russian propaganda and someone in Amnesty International got a hefty sum of money for this.

Bullshit, they said no such thing. They said Ukrainian troops were putting civilians at risk by setting up in residential areas, which goes against international conventions to protect civilians in war.

Nowhere in the report did they ever excuse Russia for attacking civilians. If it’s a propaganda job, it’s a piss-poor one, and Putin should ask for a refund.

Of course, they didn't say it directly.

And it is a great propaganda piece, it is multiplied and cited by all Russian propaganda outlets, ranging from Russian TV to countless Twitter bots.


And here is a good article about why AI's allegations are... let's say... questionable.

[Lord Shonus]

The ones dancing to the tune of Russian propaganda are, ironically, the Ukrainian military, as them setting up shop near civilians allows the Russians to say “we were aiming for the legitimate military target nearby, honest!”

The laws of war in question prohibit putting troops and weapons in areas that are forbidden to attack, such as a SAM site on the roof of a hospital, or rocket artillery in a school.  There's no evidence that Ukraine is doing that. What they are doing is fighting from the cities - including residential buildings - that have come under attack.

It is impossible to defend a city without putting troops in it, and no laws of war say "you must hand over your city as soon as it is threatened, not doing so is a war crime". There is no portion of the Geneva or Hague conventions that require you to fight only from open field or military bases.

The relevant part of international law is

Article 58 [ Link ] -- Precautions against the effects of attacks

The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.

The first bolded section is enough to throw Amnesty's allegations in the trash bin - it is not feasible for Ukraine, the party that is the target of a war of extermination, to dictate where fighting will occur, or to ensure that all civilians are evacuated before the other side starts shooting.

The second bolded section places all blame firmly on Russia. Military objectives are set by the aggressor, not the defender. Russia decides where they are going to aim their genocidal invasion, Ukraine doesn't get a say.

[hector13]

The ones dancing to the tune of Russian propaganda are, ironically, the Ukrainian military, as them setting up shop near civilians allows the Russians to say “we were aiming for the legitimate military target nearby, honest!”

The laws of war in question prohibit putting troops and weapons in areas that are forbidden to attack, such as a SAM site on the roof of a hospital, or rocket artillery in a school.  There's no evidence that Ukraine is doing that. What they are doing is fighting from the cities - including residential buildings - that have come under attack.

According to the report, there is evidence that Ukraine is basing troops in schools and hospitals though, which then makes these military targets.

It is impossible to defend a city without putting troops in it, and no laws of war say "you must hand over your city as soon as it is threatened, not doing so is a war crime". There is no portion of the Geneva or Hague conventions that require you to fight only from open field or military bases.

There’s nowhere in the report that says Ukraine should hand over the cities, or otherwise not defend them.

The relevant part of international law is

Article 58 [ Link ] -- Precautions against the effects of attacks

The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.

The first bolded section is enough to throw Amnesty's allegations in the trash bin - it is not feasible for Ukraine, the party that is the target of a war of extermination, to dictate where fighting will occur, or to ensure that all civilians are evacuated before the other side starts shooting.

So the decision to park Ukrainian military vehicles and base Ukrainian troops near occupied high rise buildings is a Russian military decision?

It is feasible for Ukraine to make every available effort to keep civilians out of the line of fire. If you have no alternative but to create a military target near civilians, the other parts say they need to be kept safe. Ukraine doesn’t decide when the shooting starts, but they can evacuate people from areas where shooting is likely to occur, like around military vehicles. If they cannot evacuate them they have to use other feasible means to keep them safe, like early warning systems, or finding a place for them to shelter in the event of attack.

They may not decide when the shooting starts, they can decide where the shooting occurs, and they can make efforts to warn civilians when fire is incoming and otherwise try to keep them safe.

The second bolded section places all blame firmly on Russia. Military objectives are set by the aggressor, not the defender. Russia decides where they are going to aim their genocidal invasion, Ukraine doesn't get a say.

If Ukraine set up artillery, that becomes a military target. If troops requisition a building as barracks or weapon stores or anything like that, that becomes a military target. Ukraine has some agency in what Russia is going to target.

Russia is the aggressor, Russia is engaging in war crimes, Ukraine does not have to make it easy for them to brush civilian casualties off as collateral damage of legitimate military targets.

I mean… if the Ukrainian military are stationing troops and materiel near civilians, then yeah. That’s bad.

Yes! It is so much better when there are no Ukrainian troops around Ukrainian civilians, like in Bucha.

All that Amnesty International report did is saying "Yes, just as Russia says, they never target civilians and when they do it is because the evil Ukrainian army uses Ukrainian civilians as meatshields". They are parroting Russian propaganda and frankly speaking I think it is Russian propaganda and someone in Amnesty International got a hefty sum of money for this.

Bullshit, they said no such thing. They said Ukrainian troops were putting civilians at risk by setting up in residential areas, which goes against international conventions to protect civilians in war.

Nowhere in the report did they ever excuse Russia for attacking civilians. If it’s a propaganda job, it’s a piss-poor one, and Putin should ask for a refund.

Of course, they didn't say it directly.

And it is a great propaganda piece, it is multiplied and cited by all Russian propaganda outlets, ranging from Russian TV to countless Twitter bots.


And here is a good article about why AI's allegations are... let's say... questionable.

Of course Russia are using it as propaganda, it’s being critical of their enemy. Do you think they quoted the parts of the report (or indeed the other AI reports) that were critical of Russian troops?

The piece absolutely ignores the realities of war, but that doesn’t mean it has no merit. Civilians are dying at the hands of Russian murderers every day, but Ukraine doesn’t need to make it easier for Russia to justify it.

[Strongpoint]

It is feasible for Ukraine to make every available effort to keep civilians out of the line of fire. If you have no alternative but to create a military target near civilians, the other parts say they need to be kept safe. Ukraine doesn’t decide when the shooting starts, but they can evacuate people from areas where shooting is likely to occur, like around military vehicles. If they cannot evacuate them they have to use other feasible means to keep them safe, like early warning systems, or finding a place for them to shelter in the event of attack.

And Ukraine is doing exactly that. End of Story. Amnesty International should prove if it is not the case before throwing allegations around. Let go through some parts of  that "research"

Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians
What a nice and not clickbaity headline that doesn't read like - Ukrainian army are war criminals.

Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today.

Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure. 

Russians are not guilty of those strikes and resulting deaths, it is Ukraine's fault! If they didn't defend, Russia would have no reason to shoot! Also, it would be nice if that report would mention which laws are broken and how

...Not every Russian attack documented by Amnesty International followed this pattern, however. In certain other locations in which Amnesty International concluded that Russia had committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv, the organization did not find evidence of Ukrainian forces located in the civilian areas unlawfully targeted by the Russian military...

Mot every... Certain... What %, dear neutral researches? 5%? Must be Russians mistakenly thinking that there were Ukrainian troops, honest mistake). And it clearly says that shelling cities in a genocidal undeclared war of aggression is not criminal at all if there are a soldier or two in the area.

Viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians – such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas.
Military bases location of which is known to the enemy? Wooded areas that offer no protection whatsoever (and very hard to provide logistical support to)? Other structures are also civilian objects.

Between April and July, Amnesty International researchers spent several weeks investigating Russian strikes in the Kharkiv, Donbas and Mykolaiv regions. The organization inspected strike sites; interviewed survivors, witnesses and relatives of victims of attacks; and carried out remote-sensing and weapons analysis.
I wonder what % of witnesses are coming from occupied territories and Russian filtration camps. Mentioning Donbas makes me suspect that they studied Mariupol

Amnesty International is not aware that the Ukrainian military who located themselves in civilian structures in residential areas asked or assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings

Dear researchers, you not being aware of something doesn't mean it is non-existent. It is called a baseless accusation. You should provide FREAKING proof that Ukrainian army doesn't do this. Also, those things can't be done loudly. Enemy has intelligence and precise weapons. Announcing on television "Everyone in 100 m of X, evacuate immediately" equals to messaging Russians "hey, shoot there!"

Mykola, who lives in a tower block in a neighbourhood of Lysychansk (Donbas) that was repeatedly struck by Russian attacks which killed at least one older man, told Amnesty International: “I don’t understand why our military is firing from the cities and not from the field.”

Let me answer, Mykola. Artillery in the open field is very easy to spot and easy to destroy. Also, logistic chains. Same goes for tanks, SAMs, infantry, everything. Also, there were calls (and assistance) for evacuation long before front-line approached now occupied Lusychansk.

AI included an absolutely dumb question without answering it. Why?

Anna said: “Shrapnel flew through the doors. I was inside. The Ukrainian artillery was near my field… The soldiers were behind the field, behind the house… I saw them coming in and out… since the war started… My mother is… paralyzed, so I couldn’t flee.”
But was she warned? Likely.


And so on... It is not a research. It is a piece of anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian propaganda.

Of course Russia are using it as propaganda, it’s being critical of their enemy. Do you think they quoted the parts of the report (or indeed the other AI reports) that were critical of Russian troops?

And here is a simple truth. When you see a maniac trying to rape and kill a woman and you are unable or unwilling to help her... At least, shut up and not criticize her "dirty" attempts to fight back. Doing so is siding with the maniac and classical case of victim blaming.


Edit: Oh, it looks like they DID use testimonies of people imprisoned in Russian filtration camps - https://twitter.com/StratcomCentre/status/1556639186257874944

[Strongpoint]

A senior Pentagon official estimated on Monday, August 8 that as many as 80,000 Russians have been killed or wounded in Ukraine since the war began in late February.

"The Russians have probably taken 70 or 80,000 casualties in less than six months


On one hand, it sounds like a lot... But the sad reality that it is a drop in a bucket of in Russian manpower. Like 0.2% of their adult male population. This war will not end any time soon.

They didn't even lose valuable people who contribute (or could contribute) to the national GDP. Ukraine is doing Russia a favor by eliminating destructive elements of the society while we lose best sons and daughters... It is so unfair

[Random_Dragon]

Meme of the day:

Spoiler: spoilered because big meme image (click to show/hide)

[Strongpoint]

Big pictures really should go under spoiler.

This nuclear plant worries me a lot. Russians mined everything but reactors there, to blow it up should they need to retreat. It will result in minor contamination and render the station inoperable for a long time... But they also casually park trucks full of explosives near reactors and if those will blow up... It is a matter of planetary security which is casually ignored by the world.

[Random_Dragon]

Big pictures really should go under spoiler.

RIP, edited it into a spoiler on realizing that, thanks for pointing it out.

[King Zultan]

So how is the Ukraine supposed to protect the civilians in cities if they can't have soldiers in cities?

[Quarque]

This nuclear plant worries me a lot. Russians mined everything but reactors there, to blow it up should they need to retreat. It will result in minor contamination and render the station inoperable for a long time... But they also casually park trucks full of explosives near reactors and if those will blow up... It is a matter of planetary security which is casually ignored by the world.

I don't know if it is ignored, but what can be done?