VorZakone
What would Kenny G do?
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 36,377
Romanian border is a couple of hundred meters away on the other side of the river.
But that is not the point I am trying to make. Analyzing UA's actions over the last few months was the focus of the conversation. Even though the Southern front line is stalling, the UA still has plenty of personnel and equipment to conduct additional operations as you said. Ironically, the fact that they still have a lot of combat potential is mainly because they can't use it in the South front line as intended atm.Of course they knew there's mines everywhere, of course they've planned accordingly. Perhaps they may have over-estimated their ability to clear and move through them under fire, but then they would have committed significant forces if that was the case, which they haven't, anywhere. They do lack experience with some of the mine clearing equipment, the MICLICs and leopard breachers, I suppose you only get that and test your capabilities by throwing some units into the fire.
Even then, you write as if "the counter-offensive" has failed. Understandable with the state of the worlds media. I'm not at that point personally, I think its barely begun.
She always answers like a boss.
I remember people said Putin would be happy and Italy would stop their support for Ukraine, if they elect her because of her right-wing politics. It seems to me she has the biggest balls out of all western european leaders.
When Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner mercenary group, launched his attempted mutiny on the morning of June 24, Vladimir Putin was paralyzed and unable to act decisively, according to Ukrainian and other security officials in Europe. No orders were issued for most of the day, the officials said.
What i don't get is why they dont target electricity grids around Moscow. I know there is the fear of escalation line but it make the populations day to day life harder without it objectively being an act of terror in the midst of a war.
If russians targeting ukanian civilian infrastructure is considered war crimes according geneva convention, so goes the other way aroud
Is nice that you can consider which civilians can suffer or not without knowing them behind a screen.On this occasion i would consider an extremely mild version of you reap what you sow. Im not edging for a dresden moment. Im edging for Russians to be completely fed up with a pointless attempt at conquest.
If russians targeting ukanian civilian infrastructure is considered war crimes according geneva convention, so goes the other way aroud
I think Ukraine blowing bridges in Crimea already qualifies as that. But perhaps im wrong
Is nice that you can consider which civilians can suffer or not without knowing them behind a screen.
Name me one major war on this scale where taking out electricity grids by the country being destroyed as exetreme or unsympathetic. And yes i like @harms
I am aware that in any war, war crimes are commited, just pointing out that if we consider war crimes by the russian,the sane should be considered if ukranians would do what you suggest. And that might ve precisely why they dont do it
On this occasion i would consider an extremely mild version of you reap what you sow. Im not edging for a dresden moment. Im edging for Russians to be completely fed up with a pointless attempt at conquest.
There will always be war crimes on either side but not on the same scale. Just like it has been in all major wars. People who think Ukraine has been squeaky clean are living in lala land but it doesn't mean they have been as bad as the other side.
I think Ukraine blowing bridges in Crimea already qualifies as that. But perhaps im wrong
Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
I think Ukraine blowing bridges in Crimea already qualifies as that. But perhaps im wrong
Putin would love that. It would prove his allegation that Russia was fighting a necessary defensive war against the West, and be the just the recruiting sergeant for his armed forces that he needs. Whilst giving no real military advantage to Ukraine whatsoever.What i don't get is why they dont target electricity grids around Moscow. I know there is the fear of escalation line but it make the populations day to day life harder without it objectively being an act of terror in the midst of a war.
The Kerch bridge is an important logistic route for the whole Russian southern front as well as their navy in Sevastopol which launches hundreds of missiles. It's a military target and therefore perfectly fine to destroy it.
They’re blowing up their own stuff, not someone else’s.What difference does it make to the context?
Putin would love that. It would prove his allegation that Russia was fighting a necessary defensive war against the West, and be the just the recruiting sergeant for his armed forces that he needs. Whilst giving no real military advantage to Ukraine whatsoever.
Much better from a propaganda point of view to persuade the Russian people that their sons are dying in tens of thousands in a needless and pointless foreign war for no other reason than Putin's own megalomania.
Is it used at all to supply civilians and civilians shops and living?
They’re blowing up their own stuff, not someone else’s.
The question is whether your proposal would make the situation better or worse for Ukraine. The answer is worse, it would give Putin more soldiers to throw in.He's caused over 300.000 casualties so far without loving that and l that jazz
The question is whether your proposal would make the situation better or worse for Ukraine. The answer is worse, it would give Putin more soldiers to throw in.
I think Ukraine blowing bridges in Crimea already qualifies as that. But perhaps im wrong
Article 52 - General protection of civilian objects
1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
Beyond that, you can blow up a bridge if doing so is out of military necessity. Russia using it to move significant amounts of military resources and men into Crimea = military necessity.So they are destroying their own infrastructure to the detriment of their own citizens? Anyway i see where you are coming from i just don't think its polemic.