From the founder of Wildberries …
“There are no words to describe all the feelings and emotions caused by the attacks on ordinary people, on our employees, on us, who are simply doing our jobs,” she wrote on Telegram. “But these situations demonstrate the most important thing: we must continue to do what we do for the benefit of people.”
I agree, but I also didn’t say “terrorism;” I used the far more precise term of terror bombing, meaning “the strategic bombing of civilian targets without military value, in the hope of damaging an enemy’s morale.”
There are targets of opportunity, but should have enough military value to make the opportunity worth the moral cost.
Again literally Zionist rhetoric. Is international law (or the basic morality meant to be portrayed by it) just for show or what? Wasn’t killing civilians bad? If “putting pressure on the enemy” is enough justification to bomb something then, again, we should be celebrating 9/11. Otherwise Ukraine has the right to defend itself, but not—barring clear military value—to bomb online retailers. And in any case, this lesson has been learned time and time again since WWII; terror bombing only galvanizes the enemy population and absolutely doesn’t compel surrender. Putin couldn’t ask for better propaganda.
This is more strategic bombing than terror bombing though. Terror bombing would be, for example, targeting apartments, or things like that. This is a warehouse that is used by a company supplying goods to the military. The fact it also damages civilian quality of life is just a bonus (in my opinion, or negative if you think civilians shouldn’t face consequences).
Just because it’s similar to rhetoric Zionists use doesn’t make it Zionist rhetoric. The largest difference is the Zionists are the invaders, as the Russians are in this case. If Palestinians can fight back like the Ukrainians are here, to try to force Israel to back off, then I’m in favor of it.
Basically, yes, and it always has been. Russia didn’t agree to the same rules, so Ukraine shouldn’t have to follow them when defending from them. It’s like if a soccer/football team plays against a rugby team. If they don’t have the same rules, it isn’t really going to work out. The rules are there so, after it’s over, we can decide who to hold accountable.
If Ukraine follows all the international laws then they’re fucked. For example, antipersonnel mines are banned by international law. Meanwhile Russia is throwing them all over the place. Should Ukraine, the defenders, not be allowed to use that tool to prevent advances? Sure, the effects after are horrible, but the effects of Ukraine losing would be worse, and they’re there anyway because of Russia.
I agree. That’s why Ukraine hasn’t done so. They could hit apartments in Moscow, like Russia is doing, but that wouldn’t serve their goal. The goal is to put pressure on civilians. It’s not like they targeted civilians here. They targeted a warehouse. I’m not sure how many dies, if any, but it won’t be a large number. It will prevent or slow down purchases though. It won’t really galvanize them, rather it’ll annoy them. If they wanted to hurt civilians they would have hit a power station near Moscow.