Accept for the moment that the US and NATO poked the Russian Bear with their designs on Ukraine.
Accept for the moment that the US orchestrated Maidan Revolution was personally humiliating to Putin.
At what point does Putin's response--the invasion of Ukraine--go “too far”? At what point should other nations say “No”?
With the Kremlin increasingly isolated by tough economic sanctions that have tanked the ruble currency, Russian troops advanced on Ukraine’s two biggest cities. In strategic Kharkiv, an eastern city with a population of about 1.5 million, videos posted online showed explosions hitting the region's Soviet-era administrative building and residential areas. A maternity ward relocated to a shelter amid shelling.
Is targeting civilians who have done nothing against Putin or Russia too far? Is the use of thermobaric weapons against civilian targets too far?
I generally don't like to link Sorcha Faal as the site can get quite crazy. In this case, however, the many links provide a solid basis for the information provided. Some tasty food for thought here:
Apparently the administrative building was going to be used as a recruiting centre by the Azov battalion (with recruitment to begin at 10 am that day; the strike occurred at around 8 am).
One should be very wary of news sources that don't even attempt to give context. For instance, the report given about that strike is entirely context free:
"In Kharkiv, with a population of about 1.5 million, at least six people were killed when the region’s Soviet-era administrative building on Freedom Square was hit with what was believed to be a missile."
So far so good, this is all factual.
"The attack on Freedom Square — Ukraine’s largest plaza, and the nucleus of public life in the city — was seen by many Ukrainians as brazen evidence that the Russian invasion wasn’t just about hitting military targets but also about breaking their spirits."
Here we now have opinions and imputed motives. Which frankly seems more poetic than reasoned. Missiles and bombs aren't free (and are getting more expensive given the financial rollercoaster the Russian economy is riding on right now). There are still Ukrainian military formations out there actively engaging in combat, and so a missile is used to....break the spirits of the population? Sorry, but this sounds like folks having watched far too many London Blitz documentaries without even remembering that initially the Germans did NOT set out to break the spirit of civilian population directly by just bombing cities generally but rather to break the British military by bombing airfields and industrial targets (the latter of course being in cities and being the subject of poor targeting data on top of that). So now the assumption is that unless a military vehicle is hit, any strike must therefore have had no military component to it.
"The bombardment blew out windows and walls of buildings that ring the massive square, which was piled high with debris and dust. Inside one building, chunks of plaster were scattered, and doors, ripped from their hinges, lay across hallways.
“People are under the ruins. We have pulled out bodies,” said Yevhen Vasylenko, an emergency official. "
Also, quite true and factual and most importantly, very very tragic.
Should the strike on that building have occurred? Absolutely not. Was it about wanton destruction on civilian targets only? That MAY not be as clear cut as the AP story would imply.
But then again, why we aren't more sceptical of the news as provided to us after the circus that was covid-19 news, I don't know. When you had stories from MSM agencies (like Reuters and AP) quoting vaccine researchers in early 2020 as saying we don't know how long natural immunity will last or even if we can develop natural immunity (a shocking question given the decades of research into how immunity actually works), but who are STILL suggesting that "this is why a vaccine is needed", well one just knew the media had lost what little critical thinking skills they possessed. After all, if we can't develop natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 or such immunity may not last long, how exactly were they expecting a vaccine to work? By magic?
"Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."
While Putin did revoke Russian agreement to Additional Protocol 1 to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Russia is still a signatory to the convention itself.
All well and good. However two things to note/ask.
The first is the technicality (which is actually important given it is a legal argument you are bringing up). That article refers to an Occupying Power. Which is what happens when one power gains actual control over the territory of another (in whole or in part). In Kharkiv, Ukraine is still in control, so the article doesn't actually apply in regards to the airstrike.
Secondly, here's a question, do you really think that the spirit of the article (as you interpreted it, rather than what it actually describes) is observed by any major military anywhere, in regards to not attacking the real property of a State during the phase before a power becomes an occupying power? Because I'm fairly certain that the US and Israeli militaries violated that repeatedly in Iraq and Lebanon.
How far is too far is a bit of odd question, because it really is either Putin's AND the West's methods are not defensible or they both are. It really can't be that we don't bat an eyelid when Clinton or George W. Bush bomb an Iraqi presidential palace (which as you note in regards to the administrative building in Kharkiv "is clearly 'real property of...the State...' and, as such, is not a legitimate military target.") in 1998 and 2003, but get all worked up when Putin does the same in Ukraine. The true answer to your question depends on everyone being honest with themselves. If you believe Putin bombing this building (for whatever reason) was too far, then you should also believe that Clinton bombing an Iraqi presidential palace was also too far. If you believe the former is too far but the latter was not (or the opposite), then of course that isn't intellectually coherent or balanced.
Personally I think any military action other than actual self defence against an external attack or a rebellion to seize control from a duly elected government that retains popular support is beyond the pale. But then I also clearly recognize that it is fantasy to imagine that this will ever really be the situation in the world because there are almost always others out there (very often in leadership in the West and in the Rest) that absolutely do NOT think the same way, and hence these types of military actions will occur again and again.
Not trying to hijack your thread, Peter...but more complete context is required to understand the situation. 'Drawing lines' here implies belief in the Western narrative of Russia bad/Russia losing and I'm as convinced of that as I am that COVID is gonna kill everybody.
It is a question of proportionality. Having legitimate security concerns does not justify no limits warfare. Having grievances with one group of people/nations/alliances is not an automatic justification for an invasion of an entirely different country.
It is possible to agree with Putin's basic concerns and still reject the propriety of his actions. There is a world of difference between having rights and being right.
I agree that "Having legitimate security concerns does not justify no limits warfare." My point is that this is not 'no limits warfare' unless you believe the approved narrative. I don't. The Russians warned civilians in Kiev(Kyiv) to evacuate from and avoid the area around a number of targets, which they subsequently destroyed. They seem to be going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. The media in the West won't acknowledge this, especially before Smirky's big war speech tonight.
....please at least try to understand the following points:
First, the Russians do not see Ukrainian as Hadjis but as their own brothers.
Second many/most LDNR soliders have relatives in the Nazi occupied Ukraine.
Third, yes, Russia can turn any Ukrainian city into Fallujah, but who do you think will then have to pay for its reconstruction?
Fourth, please understand that the double goals of 1) denazification and 2) disarmament implies that any person which is not a Nazi or is not armed and hostile is not, repeat, NOT the target of the Russian armed forces.
Fifth, the Ukie military was 80% defeated on Day 1. Get that? It was gone as a coherent fighting force. THAT is why they are blowing up bridges, distributing weapons and releasing convicted criminals. NOT because they are winning! I mean – how stupid are you if you believe that? Ukie stupid?
Seriously?
Right now you are the object of probably the biggest PSYOP operation in history. If you realize that and treat these PSYOPs as you should, that is as “informational warfare from the bad guys” you will be able to tell your kind and grandkids “I never believed that crap”. Good for you!
Note: I dispute Saker's claim that the Ukrainian war is the biggest psyop in history. That dubious accolade is held by the COVID fraud. Remember COVID? Pushed right off the news cycle...gone...done.
Historical context: when Germany invaded Russia in 1941 a sizable portion of Ukrainians anticipated greeting the invaders with "bread and salt"--two tokens of welcoming friendship.
However the Russians may see Ukrainians, Ukrainians--particularly outside the Donbass--do not want to be part of a reborn Russian Empire. Putin's desire for unification of Russians and Ukrainians runs headlong into a major obstacle: Ukrainians.
The fact that Kyiv still stands is pretty powerful testimony of the Ukrainian desire not to be part of "Greater Russia". That should matter, yes?
I don't think Putin wants the Ukes to be part of any 'reborn Russian Empire'. That's a Western media trope. He wants a neighboring country without NATO military bases and weapons directed at Russia.
"In essence, Ukraine's ruling circles decided to justify their country's independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people."
Are the Russians really targeting civilians or is that US/Ukie propaganda? "Western intelligence sources Saturday morning judged that since Russian forces’ advance lagged behind planning and had so far failed to capture Kiev, President Vladimir Putin had decided to escalate the operation with the heaviest weapon deployed by his army, short of a nuclear warhead."
Western intelligence sources? Ahem.
More fearmongering, 'Russia is losing' propaganda. It's just too obvious.
I repeat. It is only a 'western intelligence source' that claims such weapons have been used. I've seen no evidence to confirm this at all. Do you know for sure that the residential explosions were not self-inflicted to frame the Russians? Standard CIA trickery. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's no less unlikely than your assumption that the Russians targeted civilians. I don't think they're so stupid as to do so.
Or 3) residential/administrative/commercial buildings are being used by the Ukrainian military?
It's weird that this doesn't even seem to emerge as a thought given what we have seen happen in Iraq (with the US military engaging first the Iraqi military and later insurgents) and in Lebanon and Palestine (with the Israeli military engaging in operations).
Here's something I didn't know about...There are 8 bioweapons labs in Ukraine run by Fauci's EcoHealth Alliance. Hmmmmm..... https://strangesounds.org/2022/02/us-embassy-just-removed-all-their-ukraine-bioweapon-lab-documents-from-the-website-here-they-are.html
I generally don't like to link Sorcha Faal as the site can get quite crazy. In this case, however, the many links provide a solid basis for the information provided. Some tasty food for thought here:
https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index3846.htm
Apparently the administrative building was going to be used as a recruiting centre by the Azov battalion (with recruitment to begin at 10 am that day; the strike occurred at around 8 am).
One should be very wary of news sources that don't even attempt to give context. For instance, the report given about that strike is entirely context free:
"In Kharkiv, with a population of about 1.5 million, at least six people were killed when the region’s Soviet-era administrative building on Freedom Square was hit with what was believed to be a missile."
So far so good, this is all factual.
"The attack on Freedom Square — Ukraine’s largest plaza, and the nucleus of public life in the city — was seen by many Ukrainians as brazen evidence that the Russian invasion wasn’t just about hitting military targets but also about breaking their spirits."
Here we now have opinions and imputed motives. Which frankly seems more poetic than reasoned. Missiles and bombs aren't free (and are getting more expensive given the financial rollercoaster the Russian economy is riding on right now). There are still Ukrainian military formations out there actively engaging in combat, and so a missile is used to....break the spirits of the population? Sorry, but this sounds like folks having watched far too many London Blitz documentaries without even remembering that initially the Germans did NOT set out to break the spirit of civilian population directly by just bombing cities generally but rather to break the British military by bombing airfields and industrial targets (the latter of course being in cities and being the subject of poor targeting data on top of that). So now the assumption is that unless a military vehicle is hit, any strike must therefore have had no military component to it.
"The bombardment blew out windows and walls of buildings that ring the massive square, which was piled high with debris and dust. Inside one building, chunks of plaster were scattered, and doors, ripped from their hinges, lay across hallways.
“People are under the ruins. We have pulled out bodies,” said Yevhen Vasylenko, an emergency official. "
Also, quite true and factual and most importantly, very very tragic.
Should the strike on that building have occurred? Absolutely not. Was it about wanton destruction on civilian targets only? That MAY not be as clear cut as the AP story would imply.
But then again, why we aren't more sceptical of the news as provided to us after the circus that was covid-19 news, I don't know. When you had stories from MSM agencies (like Reuters and AP) quoting vaccine researchers in early 2020 as saying we don't know how long natural immunity will last or even if we can develop natural immunity (a shocking question given the decades of research into how immunity actually works), but who are STILL suggesting that "this is why a vaccine is needed", well one just knew the media had lost what little critical thinking skills they possessed. After all, if we can't develop natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 or such immunity may not last long, how exactly were they expecting a vaccine to work? By magic?
Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
"Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/1595a804df7efd6bc125641400640d89/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument
While Putin did revoke Russian agreement to Additional Protocol 1 to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Russia is still a signatory to the convention itself.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-warcrimes-convention-idUSKBN1WW2IN
An administrative building is clearly "real property of...the State..." and, as such, is not a legitimate military target.
Whether the objective was actual terror or simply a lack of discrimination is arguably irrelevant.
The question is, as I stated initially, "how far is too far?" At what point do Putin's methods cease to be defensible?
When illegitimate targets are selected for attack, is that too far? Is that too much?
(I should note that the question is equally valid regarding NATO and EU responses, but that necessarily is a different thread.)
All well and good. However two things to note/ask.
The first is the technicality (which is actually important given it is a legal argument you are bringing up). That article refers to an Occupying Power. Which is what happens when one power gains actual control over the territory of another (in whole or in part). In Kharkiv, Ukraine is still in control, so the article doesn't actually apply in regards to the airstrike.
Secondly, here's a question, do you really think that the spirit of the article (as you interpreted it, rather than what it actually describes) is observed by any major military anywhere, in regards to not attacking the real property of a State during the phase before a power becomes an occupying power? Because I'm fairly certain that the US and Israeli militaries violated that repeatedly in Iraq and Lebanon.
How far is too far is a bit of odd question, because it really is either Putin's AND the West's methods are not defensible or they both are. It really can't be that we don't bat an eyelid when Clinton or George W. Bush bomb an Iraqi presidential palace (which as you note in regards to the administrative building in Kharkiv "is clearly 'real property of...the State...' and, as such, is not a legitimate military target.") in 1998 and 2003, but get all worked up when Putin does the same in Ukraine. The true answer to your question depends on everyone being honest with themselves. If you believe Putin bombing this building (for whatever reason) was too far, then you should also believe that Clinton bombing an Iraqi presidential palace was also too far. If you believe the former is too far but the latter was not (or the opposite), then of course that isn't intellectually coherent or balanced.
Personally I think any military action other than actual self defence against an external attack or a rebellion to seize control from a duly elected government that retains popular support is beyond the pale. But then I also clearly recognize that it is fantasy to imagine that this will ever really be the situation in the world because there are almost always others out there (very often in leadership in the West and in the Rest) that absolutely do NOT think the same way, and hence these types of military actions will occur again and again.
Not trying to hijack your thread, Peter...but more complete context is required to understand the situation. 'Drawing lines' here implies belief in the Western narrative of Russia bad/Russia losing and I'm as convinced of that as I am that COVID is gonna kill everybody.
Here's a very thorough piece by David Stockman: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/03/david-stockman/the-land-where-history-died-part-1/
PCR thinks that Russia didn't act decisively enough... https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/02/27/a-quick-decisive-victory-can-prevent-a-wider-war/ ...and offers this update: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/03/01/ukraine-update-3/
No, drawing lines does not require belief in the narrative that Russia is bad/losing/whatever.
It goes back to a question I posed earlier; What is the end game?
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/what-is-the-end-game-in-ukraine
It is a question of proportionality. Having legitimate security concerns does not justify no limits warfare. Having grievances with one group of people/nations/alliances is not an automatic justification for an invasion of an entirely different country.
It is possible to agree with Putin's basic concerns and still reject the propriety of his actions. There is a world of difference between having rights and being right.
I agree that "Having legitimate security concerns does not justify no limits warfare." My point is that this is not 'no limits warfare' unless you believe the approved narrative. I don't. The Russians warned civilians in Kiev(Kyiv) to evacuate from and avoid the area around a number of targets, which they subsequently destroyed. They seem to be going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. The media in the West won't acknowledge this, especially before Smirky's big war speech tonight.
From 'The Saker' today...
....please at least try to understand the following points:
First, the Russians do not see Ukrainian as Hadjis but as their own brothers.
Second many/most LDNR soliders have relatives in the Nazi occupied Ukraine.
Third, yes, Russia can turn any Ukrainian city into Fallujah, but who do you think will then have to pay for its reconstruction?
Fourth, please understand that the double goals of 1) denazification and 2) disarmament implies that any person which is not a Nazi or is not armed and hostile is not, repeat, NOT the target of the Russian armed forces.
Fifth, the Ukie military was 80% defeated on Day 1. Get that? It was gone as a coherent fighting force. THAT is why they are blowing up bridges, distributing weapons and releasing convicted criminals. NOT because they are winning! I mean – how stupid are you if you believe that? Ukie stupid?
Seriously?
Right now you are the object of probably the biggest PSYOP operation in history. If you realize that and treat these PSYOPs as you should, that is as “informational warfare from the bad guys” you will be able to tell your kind and grandkids “I never believed that crap”. Good for you!
https://thesaker.is/open-letter-to-tv-watching-western-armchair-generals/
Note: I dispute Saker's claim that the Ukrainian war is the biggest psyop in history. That dubious accolade is held by the COVID fraud. Remember COVID? Pushed right off the news cycle...gone...done.
Regarding his assertion that the Ukrainian military was 80% destroyed in the first day:
If that's the case, why is Russia sending what by all accounts is a sizable force to lay seige to Kyiv?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-convoy-ground-forces-fuel-tanks-moving-toward-kyiv-maxar-2022-02-27/
If the Ukrainian military no longer exists, why has Kharkiv not fallen?
If the Ukrainian military no longer exists why did Russia only recently claim full air superiority?
The Saker's "Open Letter" essay presumes a lot. How sound his reasoning is remains open to debate.
Historical context: when Germany invaded Russia in 1941 a sizable portion of Ukrainians anticipated greeting the invaders with "bread and salt"--two tokens of welcoming friendship.
https://www.historynet.com/a-warm-welcome-turns-cold-in-nazi-occupied-ukraine/
However the Russians may see Ukrainians, Ukrainians--particularly outside the Donbass--do not want to be part of a reborn Russian Empire. Putin's desire for unification of Russians and Ukrainians runs headlong into a major obstacle: Ukrainians.
The fact that Kyiv still stands is pretty powerful testimony of the Ukrainian desire not to be part of "Greater Russia". That should matter, yes?
The fact that Kyiv still stands could also be considered powerful evidence of Russian restraint.
I don't think Putin wants the Ukes to be part of any 'reborn Russian Empire'. That's a Western media trope. He wants a neighboring country without NATO military bases and weapons directed at Russia.
To quote Vladimir Putin:
"In essence, Ukraine's ruling circles decided to justify their country's independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people."
https://archive.fo/IzbpA
The language employed by Putin throughout that essay emphasizes not just cultural but political unity.
A political unity that Ukraine is rejecting rather forcefully at the moment.
Are the Russians really targeting civilians or is that US/Ukie propaganda? "Western intelligence sources Saturday morning judged that since Russian forces’ advance lagged behind planning and had so far failed to capture Kiev, President Vladimir Putin had decided to escalate the operation with the heaviest weapon deployed by his army, short of a nuclear warhead."
Western intelligence sources? Ahem.
More fearmongering, 'Russia is losing' propaganda. It's just too obvious.
https://www.aol.com/frustrated-putin-may-order-escalation-013817578.html
When residential buildings come under fire, the two options are 1) civilians are being targeted or 2) the Russians have really bad aim.
If the Russians are in fact using thermobaric weapons against cities then yes, they are targeting civilians.
I repeat. It is only a 'western intelligence source' that claims such weapons have been used. I've seen no evidence to confirm this at all. Do you know for sure that the residential explosions were not self-inflicted to frame the Russians? Standard CIA trickery. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's no less unlikely than your assumption that the Russians targeted civilians. I don't think they're so stupid as to do so.
Or 3) residential/administrative/commercial buildings are being used by the Ukrainian military?
It's weird that this doesn't even seem to emerge as a thought given what we have seen happen in Iraq (with the US military engaging first the Iraqi military and later insurgents) and in Lebanon and Palestine (with the Israeli military engaging in operations).
'Zackly!