Bay 12 Games Forum

The Great and Powerful Toad wields the Ultimate Weapon in Forum Warfare: The Banhammer.

And the whole point is that there AREN'T alternatives available. Not unless you want your populace to return to places with no housing, no industry, no infrastructure, etc. Unless you think that A. the Russians will just leave without being forced out, violently or B. the Russians are going to find any problem with demolishing a city if, somehow, Ukraine manages to beat superior Russian numbers in the open field and forces the Russians to retreat.

There is absolutely nothing for it but to fight from the cities, which are both the location that must be defended the most AND the easiest places to defend. Losing the entire country to literally genocidal maniacs in exchange for slightly less threat to civilians is...not an option. Not a realistic, reasonable, or conscionable one anyway.

Again someone is coming from the position that Amnesty said not to fight in cities.

The report said the military should use viable alternatives if available, and if not, make every available effort to protect civilians nearby.

The advice is “be better”, which is shit advice, yes, but it is not “LET RUSSIA OVERRUN YOUR POSITIONS WITH NO RESISTANCE AND RAPE PILLAGE AND MURDER THEIR WAY TO KYIV YOU FUCKS”, as everyone here appears to think.

Quote from: King Zultan on August 09, 2022, 03:38:40 am

So how is the Ukraine supposed to protect the civilians in cities if they can't have soldiers in cities?

That's the neat thing, they can't. Amnesty can go and shove their accusations up their collective ass.

Amnesty didn’t say they can’t have soldiers in cities.

at least it's not refrigerators.

How could you not like,
the best end to a haiku,
refrigerator?

It takes a very short time for your body to lose stamina and strength (a matter of weeks) if you stop doing exercise, so if you have been away from physical activity for a while that could be it.

Quote from: hector13 on August 08, 2022, 01:59:52 am

The ones dancing to the tune of Russian propaganda are, ironically, the Ukrainian military, as them setting up shop near civilians allows the Russians to say “we were aiming for the legitimate military target nearby, honest!”

The laws of war in question prohibit putting troops and weapons in areas that are forbidden to attack, such as a SAM site on the roof of a hospital, or rocket artillery in a school.  There's no evidence that Ukraine is doing that. What they are doing is fighting from the cities - including residential buildings - that have come under attack.

According to the report, there is evidence that Ukraine is basing troops in schools and hospitals though, which then makes these military targets.

It is impossible to defend a city without putting troops in it, and no laws of war say "you must hand over your city as soon as it is threatened, not doing so is a war crime". There is no portion of the Geneva or Hague conventions that require you to fight only from open field or military bases.

There’s nowhere in the report that says Ukraine should hand over the cities, or otherwise not defend them.

The relevant part of international law is

Quote

Article 58 [ Link ] -- Precautions against the effects of attacks

The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.

The first bolded section is enough to throw Amnesty's allegations in the trash bin - it is not feasible for Ukraine, the party that is the target of a war of extermination, to dictate where fighting will occur, or to ensure that all civilians are evacuated before the other side starts shooting.

So the decision to park Ukrainian military vehicles and base Ukrainian troops near occupied high rise buildings is a Russian military decision?

It is feasible for Ukraine to make every available effort to keep civilians out of the line of fire. If you have no alternative but to create a military target near civilians, the other parts say they need to be kept safe. Ukraine doesn’t decide when the shooting starts, but they can evacuate people from areas where shooting is likely to occur, like around military vehicles. If they cannot evacuate them they have to use other feasible means to keep them safe, like early warning systems, or finding a place for them to shelter in the event of attack.

They may not decide when the shooting starts, they can decide where the shooting occurs, and they can make efforts to warn civilians when fire is incoming and otherwise try to keep them safe.

The second bolded section places all blame firmly on Russia. Military objectives are set by the aggressor, not the defender. Russia decides where they are going to aim their genocidal invasion, Ukraine doesn't get a say.

If Ukraine set up artillery, that becomes a military target. If troops requisition a building as barracks or weapon stores or anything like that, that becomes a military target. Ukraine has some agency in what Russia is going to target.

Russia is the aggressor, Russia is engaging in war crimes, Ukraine does not have to make it easy for them to brush civilian casualties off as collateral damage of legitimate military targets.

Quote from: hector13 on August 08, 2022, 01:59:52 am

Quote from: Strongpoint on August 08, 2022, 01:00:05 am

Quote from: hector13 on August 07, 2022, 01:42:47 pm

I mean… if the Ukrainian military are stationing troops and materiel near civilians, then yeah. That’s bad.

Yes! It is so much better when there are no Ukrainian troops around Ukrainian civilians, like in Bucha.

All that Amnesty International report did is saying "Yes, just as Russia says, they never target civilians and when they do it is because the evil Ukrainian army uses Ukrainian civilians as meatshields". They are parroting Russian propaganda and frankly speaking I think it is Russian propaganda and someone in Amnesty International got a hefty sum of money for this.

Bullshit, they said no such thing. They said Ukrainian troops were putting civilians at risk by setting up in residential areas, which goes against international conventions to protect civilians in war.

Nowhere in the report did they ever excuse Russia for attacking civilians. If it’s a propaganda job, it’s a piss-poor one, and Putin should ask for a refund.

Of course, they didn't say it directly.

And it is a great propaganda piece, it is multiplied and cited by all Russian propaganda outlets, ranging from Russian TV to countless Twitter bots.


And here is a good article about why AI's allegations are... let's say... questionable.

Of course Russia are using it as propaganda, it’s being critical of their enemy. Do you think they quoted the parts of the report (or indeed the other AI reports) that were critical of Russian troops?

The piece absolutely ignores the realities of war, but that doesn’t mean it has no merit. Civilians are dying at the hands of Russian murderers every day, but Ukraine doesn’t need to make it easier for Russia to justify it.

The child is teething.
I am going bananas.
Refrigerator.

I’m up for whatever you want to do, sure.