World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Honestly, I don't get the point of calling a small attack like this on a civilian target a victory. I understand bridges and other infrastructure with military value, military targets in general etc., but this is a basically random building. The fact that the ministry owned it seemes a very stretched motivation, not to talk about "several ministries have offices in this district"... I mean, it's Moscow city, like the city of London, it's basically just offices.
I feel like we should not cross the line where we justify attacks on civilians, and let Russia be the only one committing war crimes by doing that (and hopefully paying the price).
The only people who know why the target was chosen are probably not hanging out on Lemmy.
But really there's no reason whatsoever to put restrictions on the smaller weaker country who is being invaded. War is hell. Russian civilians can rise up against Putin if they don't feel safe in their own country. 100% of this is on Putin.
I disagree. I think that respecting the Geneva convention is a reasonable restriction to impose, and it also does not hinder in any way the ability to win the war, as it specifically protects only people who do not participate in the war.
The Geneva convention is a set of rules created so that during a war actions aren't taken by either side. They only work if they are followed by both. One side has been targeting civilians since day 1. That rule has been broken so is no longer a concern.
If a nation is using chemical weapons, for example, just yelling about the rules doesn't change anything. You need to adapt to the new rules for that war, whatever they are. You don't have the option to be polite in war.
A war crime is a always a war crime. And the people committing war crimes will always be war criminals. Public opinion doesn't matter. The fact that certain countries don't prosecute war criminals doesn't matter. The fact that certain countries try to legitimize war crimes doesn't matter. A war crime is always a war crime. And a war criminal will always be a war criminal. It really is that sjmple.
Sometimes in war there is a choice between being a war criminal or being annihilated, though. Also, these choices are made by the elite who aren't playing by the same rules as everyone else. They can't be tried for war crimes if they win the war, and that's all that they care about.
Plus like other commentors said, Russia is the one who made the rules this way.
A rule that is not enforced is not a rule.
The enforcement of the rule at a later date will be affected by the outcome of the war. If Ukraine loses the war, who will be held accountable for Putin's crimes?
The rule will not be enforced, so limiting only the vulnerable, honest side is not a fair application of the rule. It may result in the deaths of many more innocent, vulnerable Ukranians who are the victims in this invasion.
The invader has set the rules with their attacks. Let them suffer the rules they have set.
This is a new perspective I was not aware of. Why would they work only if followed by both sides, considering that affect people outside the conflict and do not grant any military advantages? I don't think it works like this that once a rule is broken automatically "is no longer a concern".
Your example doesn't fit, because you specifically picked one that -while constituting possibly a banned weapon- does grant you military advantages. I am talking about thinks like killing war prisoners, killing or attacking civilians etc., which are the subject of the Geneva convention, AFAIK.
Attacking some civilian targets does have a strategic advantage. First, attacking factories can deny resources. Second, making a population tired and stressed can lead to issues at home that need to be taken care of, which takes manpower and resources. I'm not condoning it, but it does create some strategic value. That's what the bombings of cities were for during WWII. It was largely about destroying war infrastructure (with hard to aim weapons and poor compared to modern intelligence).
War prisoners also take resources to care for. If they're dead, they don't. It's potentially advantageous to not have them. Again, not condoning it, just stating reality.
The Geneva convention covers many things. It's a set of guidelines to ensure war doesn't escalate. There's some things that are banned just so it's not confused as another form of attack and things spiral. It only works if both sides of a war agree on the rules though, otherwise why is one side not allowed to use tools their enemy is using?
I think this is an interesting arguments. I would probably debate whether economic (marginal) damages constitute a strategic advantage, but in general I agree that it's true. Injured people, manpower loss etc. is an overall damage. Maybe I would rephrase in that they don't translate into immediate military gains, and there are of course negative sides as well (like the loss of image which I think is crucial for Ukraine in particular). I still feel that the benefits mentioned are not that valuable to violate the overall principles, especially because any violation is a step further towards abandoning those principles at all, which I don't think is anyone interests (not that Russia is respecting any of those anyway, but this can have effects on other wars as well, potentially).
It's a principle in warfare, and particularly warfare since WWI, that whatever you do in war, can be done TO you with no repercussions. It is why the US has a standing stated policy that they will nuke anyone using an ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) weapon. If you attack with a weapon of mass destruction the reserves the right to nuke you.
Same principle. If you attack civilians you just authorized attacks on YOUR civilians . If you attack non-military targets you just authorized attacks on your non-military targets.
All that said, any airport is a military target in time of war.
Any reference to this principle? This doesn't sound like a way international right works. I can imagine this can be part of military doctrine, though.
Yeah, an airport for sure, I consider it "infrastructure".
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: Some obligations under the law of armed conflict are reciprocal in that they are binding on the parties only so long as both sides continue to comply with them. A major violation by one side will release the other side from all further duty to abide by that obligation.
"Some" obligations may perfectly work this way . Not sure I would take a military handbook as a reference for international right (especially from one of the countries that doesn't even recognize the ICC), but either way, I strongly doubt the meaning is "if they start torturing their prisoners, we should torture ours" or mirroring other war crimes. I am no expert, but I think that the motivation "the enemy did it before us" wouldn't hold much in the ICC.
You've never heard of people responding to rule breaking with rule breaking of their own? Your assertion that it has no military advantage is flat out wrong, this attack has a military advantage. It brings the fight closer to Putin and requires them to divert forces. It also makes the Russian people more likely to revolt against the war.
I did definitely hear about this, but I don't think I can say I understand it in all situations. Specifically about this, I quote:
As a commentary to the Article 2 of the 4th Geneva convention.
Realistically, Russia seems to be perfectly content in having its own population die. These advantages might be true, but they depend a lot on how Russia reacts to this. As far as Putin is concerned, I am quite sure he has a permanent residence in some bunker somewhere anyway.
I think this is a legitimate opinion, but I think that history showed us over and over that attacked populations tend to unite. I don't know if you have any particular example in mind.
Ukraine broke Geneva convention rules? How and when exactly?
How is this relevant?
A: But really there’s no reason whatsoever to put restrictions on the smaller weaker country who is being invaded. War is hell.
B: I think there are good reasons to impose the restriction of the Geneva convention on Ukraine, even if is being invaded.
It's an abstract consideration of the moral legitimacy of an invaded country to act without any restriction (according to OC) or not (according to me). Whether it did break or not the rules of Geneva convention is a completely separate debate. Here the topic is: is it reasonable or not to expect Ukraine, as invaded country, to act within the limits of the Geneva convention?
Say you don't understand the Geneva convention without saying you don't understand the Geneva convention.
Karma farming even on Lemmy? Or what is the point of such comments? I am interested about what part I don't understand, in particular of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
Do you want to apply that to 9/11?
Are you like an anti-historian or are you just trying to be uselessly hyperbolic?
I just find it unpleasant how we're supposed to hate the Russian people now, as if they're personally responsible for the war
I mean, that's just happening in your head, we hate the Russian government and the subset of the Russian people who support it. Hating some rando for being Russian is still wrong.