Hacker News Reader

Comment by legalcorrection | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

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

> 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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com