sudneo

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".

If a nation is using chemical weapons

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.

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?

I’m sorry but yes, you are drawing a false equivalency between Russia and Ukraine by holding them to the same standards and insisting there is a “qualitative similarity”, and they are not the same.

How holding to the same standards is making an equivalency? By which definition...?

is a “qualitative similarity”, and they are not the same

How, taking a single episode, there is no qualitative similarity? How a building in Moscow (a civilian one - not necessarily this one) is different from one in Kyiv or Lviv? How the Vinnytsia missile in the park is different from the missile in Taganrog?

and the situations they are in, are inherently different and to disregard that is to be unjust, and you might not want to hear it, but you really are being unjust by doing that.

Yeah, indeed it is, but this doesn't mean that a missile on a building is a missile on a building. Even a person shot is the same thing, but of course I don't consider a Russian invading being killed the same as an Ukrainian defending being killed, similarly to how I don't consider a fascist killed in 1945 the same as a partisan killed. The difference is that when you are killing people who are outside the conflict, the nuanced difference of the role that each plays in the context is lost. This is my opinion, and I don't think that being born/living in a country that is invading another makes you less of an innocent than living in a country which is being invaded.

Ukraine launching a drone attack on a Moscow airport simply is not the same as Russia invading and committing genocidal acts against a sovereign nation

Of course is not the same, as this was not implied anywhere. Also, it is not Moscow airport (I explicitly mentioned that I would actually support attacks on infrastructure).

That’s why the others are upset at you, I think

I think that's because most of people are trying harder to find an enemy to disagree with than actually reading and understanding other people ideas. This is not surprising, is the regular war propaganda result.

then we have to judge it on the founding principle of all human rights: self-defense, and you are violating Ukraine’s right of self-defense by insisting it limit its military options, which Russia has proven it can and will exploit and take advantage of to harm Ukraine even more.

You are being dishonest here. Not attacking civilians objectives, i.e. not attacking people who are outside the conflict by definition, is not limiting military options. It has nothing to do with self-defense, unless you really want to claim that the random civilian is a threat - by existing - to Ukraine. I feel this is a crucial point of disagreement that needs to be solved, so let me be clear: I think that any military target, outside or inside Russia, that can help win the war is a fair and justifiable target to attack. I think that civilian targets, that by definition are not involved in the war, are not. Do you disagree? If that's the case, you need to explain to me how that is helping winning the war and also why you think the Geneva convention is wrong.

Yes you are, because the result of what you are asking for, ultimately, boils down to them either committing Act A or accepting death, and in this war among many others, yes, that is exactly what’s happening.

No, I think you are creating a false dichotomy to help your argument. I think (and hope) Ukraine can win the war without attacking civilian objectives. So far I still need to understand from you why do you think this is instead necessary, and the alternative of not doing this is to surrender.

You might not have been watching the news, but the rest of us have, and Russia is actively trying to commit genocide against Ukraine.

I appreciate the attempt to patronize, but as I said in another comment, my fiance' is Ukrainian and her whole family is there. I am well aware of what's happening.

It is obviously a choice between doing everything possible to ensure one’s own survival or accepting imminent death.

I repeat that this is a false reasoning. If Ukraine tomorrow started dissecting children it would be up to you to demonstrate that this is necessary for survival, as I wouldn't morally justify. I took an extreme example intentionally to convey the point, but the idea is the same. You are accepting by default that any action is justified a-priori, I think instead that defending yourself is absolutely your right, but this does not automatically removes any restriction to what you can (morally) do. Specifically, I think that upholding the Geneva convention is still a reasonable constraint, even when Russia is constantly violating it.

I don’t think you’d be willing to tell your family to accept imminent rape and murder from burglars because of your extremist views on gun control, for instance.

This is again the result of the flawed dichotomy, it's in no way a representation of my stance.

Well, in this case, you have to, not only because it is a tactic that has been very effective throughout all of human history, but because it’s what your opponent believes and you’re not adequately addressing their concerns.

Is it? I thought that World War II was a good enough example of how that doesn't work. And isn't this very same war an example of that? Did Ukrainian people surrender once they were attacked or they united in the face of the enemy? Could you make some example of how that's an effective tactic and why this effectiveness should prevail over the common principle of not doing, stated in the Geneva convention?

in this case, you have to [...] By refusing to

Thankfully I did that too, suggesting two possible arguments for that. I see you completely ignored that though, I guess it was more important debating the possibility of developing connections.

And over the past 70 years, things changed completely. Now we have advanced technology like drones, and cluster munitions, and F-16s, and nuclear weapons.

The advancement of weapons if anything should enable the possibility to carry out war in a more precise way, with less "collateral damage". I don't know why I feel that your argument is instead the opposite?

and you’re doing it indirectly by condemning Ukraine by using means it was given by the same countries that made the Geneva Conventions and other treaties in the first place, with their blessing to use against Russia to save itself.

Eh? There is nothing wrong with using drones to attack. Why you are mixing tools and targets? Let me be clear. Do you think the principles stated in the Geneva convention are wrong and outdated? Do you think that people not involved, or not anymore involved, in a conflict should not be treated humanly and constitute targets for attacks? I would like at this point for you to say it clearly, because there is no need to beat around the bush. I think that is a right principle, disregard the modern weapons we might have, and I think it is still right to apply it today.

to condemn Ukraine

I did not "condemn" Ukraine. I raised concerns about the people celebrating this as a victory. Again, you are projecting on me a boxed set of opinions that are easier to attack for you.

And the rest of the world has decided that it is moral for Ukraine to use those drones to do such a thing. The gavel has been swung and not in your favor, I fear.

And...? Who is "the world" and who "ruled" already? And why would it matter for what I think? The very same fact we are having this conversation is proof that this is not so clear cut.

Then you clearly haven’t been paying attention, because that is what has been happening.

You keep using these sentences that somehow are supposed to be self-evident. I mean, no. You have to support your claim that if you don't attack civilians you have the nuclear annihilation and the genocide can't be stopped. You can't simply cut any part where you need to support your claims with "you haven't been watching news", "you haven't been paying attention" and the like.

Russia lost any benefit of the doubt or meaningful consideration it would have otherwise had because of its actions, and if we are to make a fair and just world, you and people like you must accept that.

What does this have to do with ANYTHING? What is "Russia" in your sentence? The government? The country? The entire population? Should I go and shoot to my Russian colleague living in Portugal because he is making a genocide? Rather than grand abstract sentences I would appreciate more clarity.

I am not drawing any equivalency. There is an enormous, incommensurable quantitative difference between Russia and Ukraine when it comes to civilian attacks. This does not mean that taking a single episode we need to deny the qualitative similarity. This does not make things equal, but I think I could still disapprove Ukraine kidnapping 1 child from Russia even if Russia kidnapped thousands of them from Ukraine. This wouldn't be making any equivalence.

Regarding the next part, I am not asking Ukraine anything, let alone to accept genocide. Really there is nothing in between "complete surrender" and "attacks on civilians" in your own perspective?

I also don't think it is necessary to explain why attacking civilians does not help winning a war. This topic was discussed and settled already more than 50 years ago. In case, it would be responsibility of those who feel this kind of attack is necessary to understand how they can help winning the war. My argument is that 1. Civilians are not part of the conflict by definition, therefore there is no military strategical advantage in killing them, and 2. Killing civilians is forbidden by the Geneva convention, which also means that can backfire by making Ukraine lose some of the support from western countries, which possibly means less weapons.

I am also not against drone attacks, nor against attacks on Russian soil, I am against targeting civilians with those. I don't think the choice is simply between drone attack on civilians and accepting genocide, if you think otherwise I am keen to know why.

The concept of self-defense in this context only applies if you identify the aggressor (Russia) with the whole population, which I don't. I believe that civilians are not a reasonable military target, and I am honestly flabbergasted that there is a need to discuss something like this is 2023.

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.

pretending this is about a general idea

I am not pretending anything. I am choosing to discuss of this particular idea in this particular context. Is this allowed? My fiance is Ukrainian and her whole family is in Ukraine, do you think you need to explain to me that this is a "real war"?

Only talking about Ukraine and doing nothing to condemn Russia's actions

Because this was the topic of the conversation? I refuse the idea of having to make a balanced preamble for every comment to deflect this objection. Despite this, I have specifically mentioned that I'd rather let Russia be the only one committing war crimes.

Displaying a black-and-white way of thinking and a complete lack of empathy

?? Yeah, I think killing civilian is black and white. Where is the lack of empathy in defending the fact that people who are outside a conflict should not be killed? This is a general principle that applies for Russians as much as for Ukrainians (and Americans, and Afghani, etc.).

"I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT HE DID TO YOU, YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE VIOLENCE IS ALWAYS WRONG, YOU'RE EXPELLED!"

You are so wrong in your (to be honest, ridiculous) attempt to paint my own ideas. So wrong that I actually don't refute the idea of violence at all, I am not a pacifist in that sense at all. In your example, if the bullied kid went raping the bully's mom I would then think that the bullied kid is wrong, though. This is a more fit example. I strongly support violence in many scenarios, hell, my whole country freedom is based on killing fascists, which I happily celebrate.

And you are that Karen who is not listening because morality for you isn't about the real world and how real people are suffering, it's about your ego, your feelings, and controlling other people by claiming and fighting over the moral high ground.

Forgive me, but what the fuck lol. You are contesting basic principles. Basic. BASIC. People that do not or do not anymore participate in a war should be treated with humanity. Your example is completely meaningless, because you don't make a distinction between the bully (the state) and the people who live in it. They are not the same thing. Russia as a state, as a military apparatus is not the same as the sum of Russian people. There are many people who do not have any active role (not even moral, as supporters, if you really want to stretch the definition) in the war that Russia is doing, but in your made up scenario this is not taken into account. It's like saying "drop a bomb on the bully's house and kill all his family". You are taking a very dishonest rethorical shortcut.

And you care NOT for the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children who were kidnapped and are being held in Russia somewhere, for which an invasion is the only hope of getting them back.

And you say this based on...? Also, I really hope that you are wrong in that an invasion is the only way to bring them back, but in any case this is again a different subject. And even in that invasion, there is a difference between invading and going house to house and kill everyone. I could even morally support the first, I wouldn't the latter.

And you care NOT for the fact that Russia already rigged the Zaphorzhiza plant to blow, which will cause the largest radiation disaster in world history if Putin is not removed before giving the order to blow it up

Thankfully this is not confirmed yet. Either way, I do live probably much closer to you to the central, and as stated, my fiance's family lives even closer. So maybe you should avoid making arbitrary projections on what people think and stick to what is written and discussed?

because you arbitrarily decided any action on Russian soil is wrong regardless of what they do to Ukraine

Now we enter in the realm of lies, lack of ability to read or straight up bad faith. Go read the root comment. I have said loud and clear that as far as I am concerned military targets are totally fair game for attacks, including infrastructure. Why making something up just to have fuel for your rambling?

which is you siding with Russia whether you want to admit it or not.

Ex falso quodlibet.

I honestly think that your method to carry on a conversation is completely dishonest, and I have no pleasure nor interest in carrying it on further. You are pinning on people opinions they do not express, you have the arrogance of missing the mark so wildly while attempting to define what other people think, and yet still you think you know better. Let alone the incredible amount of ad personam and the total lack of ability to stay on topic and discuss ideas.

What could I possibly answer to a rant about opinions that do not belong to me? That if you are talking to a real person on the internet maybe you should interact with the person rather than imagine their opinion at will? That projecting your idea about the other people doesn't mean those ideas are correct?

Yeah, looking at comments seems that it might not have been the target (but others also say that it was because was the property of some ministry). Either way, I guess that we could have the discussion about what is or is not acceptable assuming that it was the target, just to have an hipotetical example.

I am not enabling anything by condemning the general idea of attacking civilians. If you think this is not the case, you should at least explaining what this enablement looks like in practice. It's not sufficient to say "you enable" to have an argument.

There is nothing that attacking civilians will achieve in terms of winning the war, so I find your argument completely invalid. That is, unless anything can be justified for an abstract "greater good".

There is literally no debate on what is banned by the Geneva convention, what debate you want to have? You need to discuss whether killing innocent civilians, or torturing war prisoners is justified or not? Please, make your argument, but you are at least half a century late.

You keep using this sneaky argument according to which anything can help win the war, therefore everything is justified. I am sorry, I find it invalid. Attacking babushka in Taganrog while she goes buying groceries I don't think helps winning the war. Dissecting alive war prisoners (totally made-up example) wouldn't help that either. If you think a certain attack on civilians is functional to win the war and "avoid nuclear annihilation" you should at least explain why is so. You instead are using this as axiom to create a base for your argument.

I expect anyway your explanation of how, according to your morality and the specific conditions, killing innocent civilians is acceptable. I won't even bother mentioning the fact that moral evaluations change based on millions of factors and that this can lead to the exact consequences that conventions such as the Geneva convention aimed to leave in history.

No no, I was not claiming that this happened (many attacks on civilians), I was more discussion on the general principle of doing so and what the reaction is from people.

Even in this case, it seems that the building might not have been the target, which is fair enough, but I think it's still interesting to observe the reaction of people commenting these facts. There are a few examples already in this thread, and the idea is "everything is a fair target because Ukraine has the moral high-ground". This allows to move the conversation from the very few attacks that Ukraine did on Russian soil to the more abstract discussion of "what do we think it's acceptable".

I agree with you (including the fact that Russia seems perfectly content of having its population die), and I would add that potential attacks on civilian targets could even backfire by making Ukraine lose some of the support from the West which in turns means less weapons.

And I disagree, in the sense that I don't think killing civilians is an acceptable retaliation, even though I perfectly understand that retaliation itself might be justified.

The matter is straightforward for me: certain things are banned (Geneva convention), and that's the end of it. This kind of retaliation doesn't even guarantee any military advantage, so it's not like fighting respecting those basic principles means having to fight with hands tied. If one (Russia, US, anybody) violates these principles, should be held accountable.

The moment you start measuring who is right in doing a war crime and who is wrong, is the moment you cancel the concept of war crime, which instead I think is a hard lesson history thought us.

Yeah, I think the benefit of the doubt on the target is in order, but this still does not changes much in terms of what people find justifiable in the political discourse.

I also think that saying that attacking civilian targets has military value by forcing the relocation of defense is a slippery slope, to be honest. This seems to be automatically would justify any civilian attack during a war, don't you think? Like if for a second you wear the shoes of a Russian military, attacking civilians in Lviv becomes reasonable, not a war crime, to spread the air defense of Ukraine thin. It seems tautological to me, at least.