You can read below on what a legitimate target is. The only damage to civilians that is acceptable is a collateral damage. Simply put, a target that gives you a decisive military advantage is legitimate target while blowing prominent figures with intentions of showing them and teaching lessons is terrorism.
Bit simplistic if you don't mind me saying so.
eg So...... Ukraine blows up base in Crimea.
A civilian contractor gains a contract to rebuild the base. A local quarry supplies the aggregate to rebuild the base.
They become legitimate targets? Yes? No? Eliminating them gives a "decisive military advantage"? No?
A local Crimean catering company strikes a deal with the Russian army to feed them. They become legitimate targets? Yes? No? Eliminating them and cutting off food supply gives a "decisive military advantage"? No?
An individual is sanctioned as ""a frequent and high-profile contributor of disinformation in relation to Ukraine and the Russian invasion of Ukraine on various online platforms". Legitimate target? Yes or No?
Point is this. In many conflicts civilians have been killed on the grounds that they have been considered legitimate targets and for decisive military advantage. The line is not as clear as you think and can be argued for both ways.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
Great news on the US aid front today. US will be announcing a whopping $3 Billion aid package on the 6 month anniversary of the invasion and on Ukraine's independence day on the 24th of August.
Couldn't come at a more appropriate time, given how Russia refuses to #### off and keeps committing terror attacks, murders, rapes and kidnappings all over Ukrainian territory each and every day, all for no other reason than they seem to enjoy causing suffering and torture.
Last edited by Huntingwhale; 08-23-2022 at 02:33 PM.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
eg So...... Ukraine blows up base in Crimea.
A civilian contractor gains a contract to rebuild the base. A local quarry supplies the aggregate to rebuild the base.
They become legitimate targets? Yes? No? Eliminating them gives a "decisive military advantage"? No?
A local Crimean catering company strikes a deal with the Russian army to feed them. They become legitimate targets? Yes? No? Eliminating them and cutting off food supply gives a "decisive military advantage"? No?
An individual is sanctioned as ""a frequent and high-profile contributor of disinformation in relation to Ukraine and the Russian invasion of Ukraine on various online platforms". Legitimate target? Yes or No?
Point is this. In many conflicts civilians have been killed on the grounds that they have been considered legitimate targets and for decisive military advantage. The line is not as clear as you think and can be argued for both ways.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Robbob For This Useful Post:
Erdogan declares yesterday that Turkey does not recognize the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and that the return of Crimea to Ukraina is "a requirement of international law".
This isn't the first time Erdogan has said things Putin won't like, but it's unusually direct and more of a commitment to a certain view on the war than we've typically seen from Turkey.
I'm also taking it as a sign that Erdogan thinks Russia likely won't be able to hold Crimea.
(The cynical view of course is that this is just the result of a horse trade where NATO countries won't condemn Turkey's ongoing attack against the Kurds.)
Erdogan declares yesterday that Turkey does not recognize the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and that the return of Crimea to Ukraina is "a requirement of international law".
This isn't the first time Erdogan has said things Putin won't like, but it's unusually direct and more of a commitment to a certain view on the war than we've typically seen from Turkey.
I'm also taking it as a sign that Erdogan thinks Russia likely won't be able to hold Crimea.
(The cynical view of course is that this is just the result of a horse trade where NATO countries won't condemn Turkey's ongoing attack against the Kurds.)
Erdogen probably has a pretty big interest in standing up for territorial integrity, lest the Kurds ever fight for a chunk of Turkey.
I think Erdogan and hardline nationalist Turks would LOVE if the Kurds started a defined movement within turkish borders. They're already trying to genocide the kurds, this would help to quell some of the international and even local indignation about this activity.
Erdogan declares yesterday that Turkey does not recognize the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and that the return of Crimea to Ukraina is "a requirement of international law".
This isn't the first time Erdogan has said things Putin won't like, but it's unusually direct and more of a commitment to a certain view on the war than we've typically seen from Turkey.
I'm also taking it as a sign that Erdogan thinks Russia likely won't be able to hold Crimea.
(The cynical view of course is that this is just the result of a horse trade where NATO countries won't condemn Turkey's ongoing attack against the Kurds.)
I think he has had this line on Crimea since 2014, no?
I haven't seen it put quite like this, at least not since the start of the war?
It's fairly obvious Turkey isn't excited about the idea of an expansionist Russia (no wonder), there's been comments from Erdogan that the west should have responded to the annexation back in 2014, calling it an injustice, but there's a difference between saying something that happened was wrong and saying that the current situation is an ongoing problem and that there's only way to solve it.
Let's remember Erdogan has been working as a mediator between Ukraine and Russia. He visited Lviv just last week in what was presumed as a mediator role, and Turkey was one of the key players in negotiating the deal which allowed grain to once again be exported out of Ukraine.
So when a side that has been seen as neutral enough to be a mediator takes a clear stance on what should happen, there's a lot of symbolic significance.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
He has never claimed that Russia has to concede Crimea for any peace to happen. It was significant enough for Russian media to report it widely.
I don’t think that’s correct. I am too lazy to start googling his past position given now google is full of his Aug 2022 statement but here is an article from 2021 where his government saying Crimea must be returned. And unless he countered it it represents his view - I “know” he has said similar things in the past too.
I don’t think that’s correct. I am too lazy to start googling his past position given now google is full of his Aug 2022 statement but here is an article from 2021 where his government saying Crimea must be returned. And unless he countered it it represents his view - I “know” he has said similar things in the past too.
From some of the headlines, it looks like he gets lots of points for standing up to the imperialist West.
Valid point, but I'm really more interested in the vague feely feels of everyday Russians, even if Pointman obviously can't have an objective truth on the matter.
I don’t think that’s correct. I am too lazy to start googling his past position given now google is full of his Aug 2022 statement
Just an FYI. Google the term that you want, when the results come up select "tools", pull down the menu and select custom range. Then choose a date range before the recent headlines and it will filter out all of the new results.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jacks For This Useful Post:
