You know these people - they say Ukraine is not allowed to do what Russia does. Russia can target ships calling Ukrainian ports, but Ukraine cannot target Russian ships. Ukraine cannot bomb Moscow, while Russia can bomb Kyiv. Ukraine cannot use cluster munitions and depleted uranium, but Russia can. Russia can jail journalists but don’t Ukraine even dare to arrest even an obvious Russian agent. When Russia shells Donbas, that’s humanitarian military operation, but when Ukraine shells Donbas, that’s genocide - and so on, and so on.
There exist people who insist Third Reich should not been bombed. There exist people who want "somebody do something!" when aggressive thug assaults passengers in a tram but will criticize use of violence in defence against him. And so on.
Same group of removed from reality lunatics believe in red lines, empty threats and Ukraine fighting a war with hands tied. Is there a cure for magical thinking?
In the case of the bombing of civilian objects (and when we are talking about the bombing of the Third Reich, or Japan, the bombing has always included this), the objections relate to involvement in war crimes and consensual warfare contrary to the Geneva Conventions, for example. So I wouldn't link this to the current "red lines" regarding attacks on strategic facilities on Russian territory, or on Russian warships, where the "line" is drawn not by law or ethics, but by politics alone.
You are trying to separate the inseparable: politics and ethics of war.
And mixing what should be separated: civilian deaths from intentional targeting civilians (so, actual war crimes) and civilian deaths resulting from practical/technical limitations when at war.
Let's also no forget how we all collectively accepted nuclear deterrent (read: everyone dies) as fundamental to world's order, to such extent that we skip over it entirely when discussing limitations on how non-nuclear powers are allowed to defend their existance.
I don't know how I would decide, given the opportunity, regarding the use of unauthorized methods of warfare. And I don't want to speculate about it here. I just want to point out that I understand the objection to such methods (in the case of Ukraine, it could apply to cluster munitions); but unlike strategic bombing, ethic is not subject to these "red lines" in the war in Ukraine. In fact, as for the "reluctance to escalate the war by aggressive actions by the West or Ukraine," I don't understand its source. Is it a fear of nuclear weapons, or is it a kind of some kind of fear of unequivocally siding with Ukraine, or NATO supporting it? I don't know.
I've recently heard that some people from a Nordic charity which was delivering humanitarian aid to Ukraine freaked out when someone proposed to transport in the same car some drones for the Ukrainian military. Like, drones have zero political risk. It's just a desire to "keep my hands clean", even when you know full well how essential those drones are for the defence of innocent people - who you deliver aid to - from a barbarian invasion. Mindboggling. And I think it's something connected to Protestant ethics.
"Unauthorized"? Ukraine isn't part of the cluster munition convention, so it's perfectly legal for them to use those.
It's also mostly their territory, so it's also ethical. Doubly so when they are destroying russian assets (making the war shorter) and some of those assets destroyed are used to launch cluster munitions (worse ones, older, which generate more % of UXO) at Ukrainian cities.
This war actually changed my thinking about nuclear non-proliferation. Given how impotent the Western nuclear powers were at preventing another nuclear power from invading and wreaking havoc in a non-nuclear state, I don't see any reason why smaller countries which fear more powerful neighbors - especially if those neighbours already have nukes - should not have the right to obtain nuclear weapons. Ukraine definitely has the right to go nuclear the minute it can. So would, theoretically, Georgia (not that they could afford it). Or Taiwan.
I have doubts about the usefulness of nuclear weapons. They are used for deterrence. But if deterrence doesn't work? Suppose Ukraine had a nuke in 2014, and yet the green men attacked Crimea and Donbas. What then? Would Ukraine drop the bomb on Rostov? On Moscow?
On the other hand, however, if Russia attacked in such a situation, it would be very difficult for Ukraine to use the bomb. It would have to destroy some Russian city, i.e. commit an unimaginable crime. İ expect that the Russians would respond the same way.
And Putin does not care about losses, unlike civilized countries.
Which I don't think are in the middle of nowhere, but in cities? That is, potentially thousands of civilian casualties.
I can see Russia's reaction: ' Ukrainian Nazis are exterminating peaceful Russians on Russian soil! The green men are the local population, after all'
Russia is dropping nukes on Ukrainian cities.
The whole world is praying that it will only end there. Putin is triumphant. Ukraine disappears from the face of the earth. And the thousands of Russians killed? Putin doesn't care.
No non-scalable response is good threat against scalable threat (e.g. quick capture of small slice of territorry). Now, when facing existential threat, that's another story.
Let's also not forget that hybrid warfare methods were designed for the exact reason of avoiding full scale war with someone one doesn't want to fight with.
Chainlink fence won't stop mosquitos, mice nor cats, but we have to honestly say that it has it uses against different critters. There is no universal defensive measure.
Why and how would nukes in "western nuclear powers" prevent attack on Ukraine? I agree that this war says alot about nuclear non-proliferation, but nobody expects anyone to start world-ending nuclear war over third party (one they aren't even allied with).
I've just read in Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" (in the passage on pacifism but I think it's relevant here as well): "When your enemy has no scruples, your own scruples become another weapon in his hand".
"Remember: not even the biggest Russian patriot would actually prefer Lada over Toyota or Disneyland over Crimea. "
civic autocorrect ;-) I think that they prefer Disneyland.
Of course - thank you!
There exist people who insist Third Reich should not been bombed. There exist people who want "somebody do something!" when aggressive thug assaults passengers in a tram but will criticize use of violence in defence against him. And so on.
Same group of removed from reality lunatics believe in red lines, empty threats and Ukraine fighting a war with hands tied. Is there a cure for magical thinking?
In the case of the bombing of civilian objects (and when we are talking about the bombing of the Third Reich, or Japan, the bombing has always included this), the objections relate to involvement in war crimes and consensual warfare contrary to the Geneva Conventions, for example. So I wouldn't link this to the current "red lines" regarding attacks on strategic facilities on Russian territory, or on Russian warships, where the "line" is drawn not by law or ethics, but by politics alone.
You are trying to separate the inseparable: politics and ethics of war.
And mixing what should be separated: civilian deaths from intentional targeting civilians (so, actual war crimes) and civilian deaths resulting from practical/technical limitations when at war.
Let's also no forget how we all collectively accepted nuclear deterrent (read: everyone dies) as fundamental to world's order, to such extent that we skip over it entirely when discussing limitations on how non-nuclear powers are allowed to defend their existance.
I don't know how I would decide, given the opportunity, regarding the use of unauthorized methods of warfare. And I don't want to speculate about it here. I just want to point out that I understand the objection to such methods (in the case of Ukraine, it could apply to cluster munitions); but unlike strategic bombing, ethic is not subject to these "red lines" in the war in Ukraine. In fact, as for the "reluctance to escalate the war by aggressive actions by the West or Ukraine," I don't understand its source. Is it a fear of nuclear weapons, or is it a kind of some kind of fear of unequivocally siding with Ukraine, or NATO supporting it? I don't know.
I've recently heard that some people from a Nordic charity which was delivering humanitarian aid to Ukraine freaked out when someone proposed to transport in the same car some drones for the Ukrainian military. Like, drones have zero political risk. It's just a desire to "keep my hands clean", even when you know full well how essential those drones are for the defence of innocent people - who you deliver aid to - from a barbarian invasion. Mindboggling. And I think it's something connected to Protestant ethics.
Delivering munitions vs delivering humanitarian aid might be legal difference. Charities have charters.
Maybe, but the story was rather that it was a heated debate about ethics, not just "sorry, it's not in our charter".
"Unauthorized"? Ukraine isn't part of the cluster munition convention, so it's perfectly legal for them to use those.
It's also mostly their territory, so it's also ethical. Doubly so when they are destroying russian assets (making the war shorter) and some of those assets destroyed are used to launch cluster munitions (worse ones, older, which generate more % of UXO) at Ukrainian cities.
As someone wisely said, the biggest threat to Ukrainian children aren't unexploded munitions but unexploded Russian soldiers.
This war actually changed my thinking about nuclear non-proliferation. Given how impotent the Western nuclear powers were at preventing another nuclear power from invading and wreaking havoc in a non-nuclear state, I don't see any reason why smaller countries which fear more powerful neighbors - especially if those neighbours already have nukes - should not have the right to obtain nuclear weapons. Ukraine definitely has the right to go nuclear the minute it can. So would, theoretically, Georgia (not that they could afford it). Or Taiwan.
I have doubts about the usefulness of nuclear weapons. They are used for deterrence. But if deterrence doesn't work? Suppose Ukraine had a nuke in 2014, and yet the green men attacked Crimea and Donbas. What then? Would Ukraine drop the bomb on Rostov? On Moscow?
That's a risk Russia would have to consider. And Russian nuclear weapons seem to be very efficient at deterring NATO.
Right. One can only speculate
On the other hand, however, if Russia attacked in such a situation, it would be very difficult for Ukraine to use the bomb. It would have to destroy some Russian city, i.e. commit an unimaginable crime. İ expect that the Russians would respond the same way.
And Putin does not care about losses, unlike civilized countries.
They could nuke one of the Russian naval bases in the Black Sea.
Which I don't think are in the middle of nowhere, but in cities? That is, potentially thousands of civilian casualties.
I can see Russia's reaction: ' Ukrainian Nazis are exterminating peaceful Russians on Russian soil! The green men are the local population, after all'
Russia is dropping nukes on Ukrainian cities.
The whole world is praying that it will only end there. Putin is triumphant. Ukraine disappears from the face of the earth. And the thousands of Russians killed? Putin doesn't care.
He'd care about his fleet being blown to bits, though.
No non-scalable response is good threat against scalable threat (e.g. quick capture of small slice of territorry). Now, when facing existential threat, that's another story.
Let's also not forget that hybrid warfare methods were designed for the exact reason of avoiding full scale war with someone one doesn't want to fight with.
Chainlink fence won't stop mosquitos, mice nor cats, but we have to honestly say that it has it uses against different critters. There is no universal defensive measure.
Why and how would nukes in "western nuclear powers" prevent attack on Ukraine? I agree that this war says alot about nuclear non-proliferation, but nobody expects anyone to start world-ending nuclear war over third party (one they aren't even allied with).
I've just read in Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" (in the passage on pacifism but I think it's relevant here as well): "When your enemy has no scruples, your own scruples become another weapon in his hand".
It's about scruples of third party, this situation.
Good news everyone, we're now at the stage "we do it if the Americans do it" with German Taurus and US ATACMS missiles: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2023/08/08/germany-confirms-their-willingness-to-provide-ukraine-with-taurus-missile-if-u-s-delivers-atacms-missile/ So the decision isn't far ahead in the future.
If only we didn't have to go through this theatre each time...