Hacker News Reader

Comment by Forgeties79 | Hacker News Reader

>Russia has no interest in massacring and torturing civilians

He says as they shell residential areas, hospitals, etc.

You are a fool if you think militias don't use civilian structures and human shields. War is a dirty affair.

Didn't say that wasn't happening. I'm saying the implication that Russia is running a "clean" war is, well, "not true" to keep it diplomatic.

Edit: re "you are a fool" maybe tone down the personal attacks?

When a military unit operates out of civilian infrastructure, that infrastructure becomes a "clean" target, to use your terminology. That is well-established law of war, accepted by every nation on the planet.

Hard disagree, but it doesn't really matter ultimately. I think we just need to be careful sanitizing Russia's tactics.

> When a military unit operates out of civilian infrastructure, that infrastructure becomes a "clean" target

We have zero evidence of the military operating out of civilian infrastructure that doesn't come from Russia. We have independent evidence of the Russian military targeting civilian infrastructure which had zero military presence.

Hate to have to look at this kind of stuff, but a 61-day old account parroting Putin's propaganda points doesn't look credible per se.

The mall attack that everyone was so shocked about turned out to be housing a Ukranian MLRS which was documented by a Russian drone (obviously there for multiple days given the amount of tire tracks matching the path it took).

https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/tje6...

I personally think - technically - that is a fair target in war / urban combat. But it's also incredibly dangerous and reckless to bomb such a huge building in a city. So there's basically no good rational here if the war itself is not justifiable.

I have not been following this conflict closely at all, but the concept carries precedent: https://news.yahoo.com/hamas-rockets-found-second-united-nat...

In that instance (see link) "Israel bombs UN school in Gaza" doesn't sound very nice.

Yea, and in this case if you don't invade Ukraine you don't have to worry about any of this stuff.

Whether the war was legally initiated or not is totally beside the point of whether the laws of war are observed in its execution. That is why not every Nazi officer was a war criminal, only the ones who committed war crimes, even though they were ultimately carrying out an illegal war of aggression.

It's not beside the point because you cannot separate the two. Operating the war, from the start is an issue. Even attacking Ukrainian military personnel is an issue, let alone civilians.

> That is why not every Nazi officer was a war criminal, only the ones who committed war crimes, even though they were ultimately carrying out an illegal war of aggression.

Yes. Hopefully we'll be able to hold these Russian officers accountable. Though I think it's unlikely unless they slip up and travel to the wrong country where the United States and allies have enough sway to extradite and bring these criminals to trial.

You're kind of moving the goalposts here. The original assertion is that our attitudes are shaped by Ukrainian propaganda rather than the reality.

Certainly it is a fact that this is an illegal war which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians. Whether those deaths were, uh, "procedurally valid" is not really relevant.

...you're Russian I take it?

Except Russian soldiers were ordered to kill civilians no matter what, not just attack "civilian structures and human shields".

Do you have any proof of that?

I already posted one testimony above, from a soldier who tried to save some Ukrainians and got shot by his own people for it.

What you're proposing is a wasted effort when a neutron bomb would do this far more efficiently.

1) I'm not "proposing" anything.

2) Nobody said that historically, Russians have been perfectly rational. So whatever you think would or would not be appropriate is irrelevant, and in any case recorded facts about events that actually happened trump your feels about those events.

3) Russians may not even be in possession of neutron bombs suitable for ground delivery. The only ones they've had were installed in ABM systems and had a whopping 10 kt yield.

>What you're proposing is a wasted effort when a neutron bomb would do this far more efficiently.

Please don't spike the conversation.

Pretty sure those humanitarian corridors and theatres marked “Kids” weren’t hiding militias

Not exactly true. From what I've seen, upon investigation, targeted facilities were being used for military purposes. Again, if they were fine just killing civilians, they'd have just flattened a couple of cities to make an example of them and we'd have millions of dead civilians. The war has become complicated because Ukraine has been arming people en masse (totally legitimate) and operating out of civilian infrastructure (also legitimate in specific circumstances, but it makes that infrastructure a legitimate military target). I'm sure there's been some bungled strikes, and possibly some malicious ones, but that's clearly not the general thrust of the Russian strategy here. Do you really think Russia doesn't have the capability to just bomb central Kiev out of existence?

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/putins-bombers-could-devastate-ukra...

> Again, if they were fine just killing civilians, they'd have just flattened a couple of cities to make an example of them and we'd have millions of dead civilians.

That's what they're heading to now that their maskirovka of "liberating oppressed Russians" has failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovmPJ01m_jk

You're gonna have to explain to me how that TV station in central Kyiv was killing Russian soldiers. Explain to me nice and slow. Or are Russian troops so incompetent that they mistake a TV tower for another target?

We know where the Russian troops are, maybe 50km north of Kyiv. None of them are in downtown Kyiv yet, and they certainly weren't there on March 1st (when this video was posted).

The Russian troops at the time were trying to take Hostomel Airport, a few dozen miles north of Kyiv at this time. So there's no military reason to destroy the TV station. It was clearly an attack on civilian infrastructure. (Military communications don't use TV Towers)

It's not uncommon. It was one of NATO'S first targets in Belgrade too.

“Our military leaders at NATO believe … that the Serb television is an essential instrument of Mr. Milosevic’s command and control. … It is not, in a conventional sense, therefore, a media outlet. That was a decision they made, and I did not reverse it.” - Clinton

The US and NATO were lavished with praise for their part in that war.

You're missing out on the key context to my central question.

What was the Kyiv TV Tower broadcasting, that made it a legitimate military target?

Propaganda, presumably. Same reason Bill killed 30 employees of a Serbian TV channel and then patted himself on the back.

Please explain the Ukrainian propaganda to me that was deserving of this strike.

Capt. America punching Hitler is propaganda. I happen to agree with it. You'll need to be specific with me. Not all propaganda is bad, and it takes particularly bad propaganda before I think that military action is required. Would you support say, hypothetical German Bombers attacking Marvel Comics over their depiction of Capt. America?

I dont think it's a legitimate target whatever kind of propaganda is pumped out.

I think Bill Clinton is also a war criminal. The question is will you call him a war criminal or will you go quiet or bullshit an excuse for why it's ok when WE do it?

Edit : He never did call him a war criminal.

Then you're fine.

My issue is about whataboutism in general. If you're man-enough to admit the fault of the situation, then you've proven your point.

>"My issue is about whataboutism in general."

Whataboutism will disappear as soon as the perpetrators get punished. If a country does some awful things and walks away free and the world looks the other way it sets the example for others.

I'm fine with the practice if it's 'what about x? We should fix X'.

But a lot of Russian propaganda online is 'what about X? Let's ignore both X and Y'. It's just a distraction and fails to address the core point.

I do not give a flying fuck about Russian propaganda. Or any propaganda for that matter. It is pretty easy to see through. I am much more concerned about the reality. And the reality is simple. The guy with the biggest dick and whomever he has decided to like do what they want and go unpunished and I do not see it changing.

So I have no doubts that the R should an will be fixed and for good reasons. I am also pretty sure that X, Y and Z would continue do what they do and laugh all the way to the bank.

I don't think you can dismiss this as just whataboutism. There is at least some recognition in every legal system that law is largely about how previous cases with similar facts have been handled. This is probably how human normative systems work. The whole point of international law is that everyone agrees to limit their own freedom of action in exchange for the other guy doing the same. Once violations are openly tolerated and even accepted as legitimate, the norms lose their compelling force.

> The US and NATO were lavished with praise for their part in that war.

Because Slobodan Milosevic was committing genocide.

If you are suggesting Putin deserves similar praise for illegally using force in Ukraine, I’d like to ask why?

Ironically also one of the first targets Serbs bombed in Zagreb during the previous war.

If you don't understand the need to either take out tv stations and broadcast towers you really don't understand what a modern war is about.

TV/radio controlled by the other side spread information against your interests. Taking over this is step 1. Controlling electrical power stations and resources are next.

This is a Moscow designed structure and the tallest structure in all of Ukraine (and was the tallest in the world until 2012).

There's more cultural significance to this object than there is practical military value. The broadcasts are being filmed on other buildings inside the city. The actual tower itself is a big landmark.

I think that’s not the best of examples. Some people, in some circumstances, may consider taking out civilian communications equipment a valid target in war.

An example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Tele..., where there’s no agreement on whether that bombing in any form could have been justified.

If you watch carefully, you will notice that the strike lands near the tower, leaving it intact.

If you watch more carefully, you'll see a giant movie-like explosion which indicates that there was something very flammable in this area. Storage of gas? Some ammunition?

> which indicates that there was something very flammable in this area

For a brief period of time, the warhead of a missile.

And actually all these cases just show us how dumb is war propaganda.

No, the TV tower wasn't hit on this video, you can really see it with your eyes. The shopping mall destroyed by Kinzhal was in fact the military base/ammunition store, and some local guy made a photos of GRADs in that base(he was caught and god knows what they did to him). The guys on Zmeiny Island never said "Fuck you, Russian warship" and never died, they just gave up.

But most of this propaganda is easily swallowed by public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rocket_strike_on_Kyiv_TV_...

But sure, propaganda. The "tower was never hit", etc. etc. There's one side on this discussion who is consistently lying about the events, and its not the "Kyiv TV Tower was attacked" people.

lol, it's the same strike. Watch carefully. Just the angle is different.

upd: you would see the tower itself shackles somehow if it was hit. It don't

upd2: so who is lying on events picking angles?

Your mental gymnastics remind me of the 9/11 Truthers who wouldn't believe that the Twin Tower collapsed.

The video is self evident and your discussion points do not meet my expectation of reasonable discussion.

If this TV tower is hit, is there any photo of damaged/fallen tower? I have not found one. Only photos/videos with explosion behind the tower.

> You're gonna have to explain to me how that TV station in central Kyiv was killing Russian soldiers. Explain to me nice and slow. Or are Russian troops so incompetent that they mistake a TV tower for another target?

It was a ... a ... a Nazi transformer mecha in stealth mode! /s

Russia still does not have air superiority, so they actually might be afraid to commit bombers here as there is still working Ukrainian air defence.

And Russia is very obviously shelling entire cities indiscriminately, there is no possible way to claim this has a direct military purpose. Bombarding an entire city with artillery is a war crime.

It certainly looks like they're trying to flatten cities and kill civilians: https://twitter.com/Polk_Azov/status/1506585227069689861 - it's certainly not targeted on the military

> but it makes that infrastructure a legitimate target

It’s an illegal armed conflict, thus all use of force is illegal, even use of force on legitimate military targets is illegal.

> Do you really think Russia doesn't have the capability to just bomb central Kiev out of existence?

Capability? Maybe. The will? Absolutely not. Putin is no doubt a war criminal and despot, but: 1) he rightly fears potentially military response from the international community; 2) he has very practical considerations due to the close ties of the Russian and Ukrainian people, which goes directly to Putin’s propaganda that this isn’t war but a special military operation against a Nazi regime, he must at least try to balance his acts with his propaganda or lose support of his people and possibly his troops.

It's really horrible that a lot of civilians are dying, but it doesn't seem they are being targeted deliberately.

Knowing the real numbers it's impossible, but we can take the UN-provided numbers as a baseline:

> From 4 a.m. on 24 February 2022, when the Russian Federation's armed attack against Ukraine started, to 24:00 midnight on 22 March 2022 (local time), the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) recorded 2,571 civilian casualties in the country: 977 killed and 1,594 injured. [1]

Let's double this number and assume 5000 civilian casualties.

The US estimates that between 2000-4000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed. [2] This means that the number of military Ukrainian "casualties" (which includes wounded and not only killed), should be higher: let's take the middle of the range (3000) and double it to account for 6000 Ukrainian military casualties.

If you look at the ratio it's almost a 1:1 civilian to military casualties. Just for comparison:

> Figures by the Iraq Body Count from 20 March 2003 to 14 March 2013 indicate that of 174,000 casualties only 39,900 were combatants (Wikipedia)

This means that there are 134100 civilian and 39900 military casualties. This puts the ratio at 3.3.

This calculation is anything but scientific, but these are the only numbers we have at our disposal. (I would be interested if somebody has a better way to compute this estimate.)

Besides numbers, there are also military analysts that say this is not happening (deliberate targeting of civilians). One of them is working for the Pentagon, hardly an outlet for Russian propaganda:

> "I know it's hard ... to swallow that the carnage and destruction could be much worse than it is," says the DIA analyst. "But that's what the facts show. This suggests to me, at least, that Putin is not intentionally attacking civilians, that perhaps he is mindful that he needs to limit damage in order to leave an out for negotiations." [3]

I don't really see what would be the edge for Putin in intentionally targeting civilians, when it's obvious this would be a PR nightmare.

Lastly, I just want to say that there are reports (mainly from Mariupol) of the Azov battalion using civilian infrastructure (e.g. schools) as military outposts, while leaving the civilians inside. These have not been widely circulated in the mainstream media and I haven't found a way to verify them myself (it's pretty much impossible), but I wouldn't put it past them to do something like that, because they have been shown (just read OHCHR reports) to be capable of really horrible atrocities.

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/ukraine-civi...

[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-russia-death-toll-invas...

[3] https://www.newsweek.com/putins-bombers-could-devastate-ukra...

Western media has for 30 years excused Israel for doing precisely the same thing on the basis that militants were most likely using them as bases or to fire weapons from.

Which I also think is reprehensible. The "western media" does not speak for me. Maybe ask my opinion next time before deciding what it is?

Is it? There are some videos on /r/russia of ukrainian artillery set up next to a primary school.

There were no kids there though.

I dont really see a problem with that personally.

I'm not debating whether or not it is. You framed that previous statement as if I'd be ok with one group doing it and not another, or it was simply "whataboutism," and it doesn't apply. Either way, I'm consistent here and I don't think it's right to shell residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, etc. as you claim moral superiority/you aren't doing anything against the civilian population.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com