I think it's a difficult thing to define. I absolutely think there's good and bad and right and wrong when wars are started, but the lines get completely blurred once conflict begins. I'm not sure civilian casualties in a military operation, aimed at military targets can be called a war crime. But as I say, it's a difficult thing to define imo. Something you're only too aware of I'm sure.
If a bloke is walking down the street with his young family, and a large bloke comes up and keeps thumping him and his family, do you, as a witness say, well, it was 50/50? That, in its simplest form, is what happened. Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union. First he attacks Georgia, then Crimea, now he's invaded East Ukraine, and he'll have his eyes on the rest of Ukraine, Moldova and beyond. It's not 50/50. As to war crimes, my understanding they have to be as a result of an intentional act, or gross recklessness. Pure accident without these elements is not a war crime
Exactly - it's not black and white. Yes, Russia are the aggressor in this conflict, but that doesn't absolve Ukraine of their responsibilities when it comes to respecting the rules of engagement, even if the Russians are ignoring them. Turning a blind eye to these transgressions only strengthens the Russian argument - if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us. The rules of war are complicated, and the British Armed Forces drill it into their soldiers from an early stage, but when the heat is on it's easy to forget these things - which is why we practice so much under intense pressure so that the chance of mistakes is reduced.
What you miss from your analogy is the bloke with his family was shagging the big blokes wife behind his back whilst the world was oblivious to the misdemeanors he was carrying out - and then starting playing the victim card when he'd been found out. We've been through this, there were issues in the region long before Georgia and Crimea.
I think the more apt analogy is if the big bloke comes down the street and start thumping you in front of your family, do you try to surround yourself with your wife and kids and get some sympathy from the public when the big bloke inadvertently hits them or do you shield your family and tell them to get away and try to best him in a 1on1 even though your chances arent good
The one thing I don't think anyone will ever get the answer too is whether Ukranian civilians are happy to have the bases around them in order to fight for the cause to garner international support should an attack happen or whether they have been forced into it for the country. Obviously the latter is far more sinister than the former.
You've really bought into the Russian narrative. Even the BBC doesn't believe all this denazification guff. It's just an excuse by Russia to take land and, hopefully, instal a puppet government that will ensure, in the first event, that Ukraine does not join NATO. And of course, it would not end there. Putin has big ambitions to move west.
Goes back a lot further than that. In Yugoslavia during the war Tito's Partisans used to ambush German soldiers knowing well that the reprisals carried out would lead to vastly more recruits for the Partisans.
Actually, I do have respect for some of the BBC's foreign journalists. Anyway, waiting for your list...
If you want to believe that there's never been a right wing problem in Ukraine, fill your boots....there's hundreds of articles out there discussing the problem, both pre- and post- invasion. Not once have I used this as a justification for Putins actions, but it's a part of his reasoning...especially after the actions of Azov in the Donbas post annexation of Crimea. Feel free to keep your head in the sand. There are NO good guys in war https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary-idUSKBN1GV2TY https://unherd.com/2022/06/the-truth-about-ukraines-nazi-militias/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30414955 https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-...remists-being-co-opted-by-ukraines-far-right/
Your Reuters and, particularly, BBC article completely undermine the argument that there was a material "Nazi" problem in Ukraine. Russia are the aggressors and all respectable Western media accept Putin's ulterior motives. Ukraine are a democratic country defending themselves against an autocratic tyrant that is alienating his country from the World apart from the likes of Iran, Cuba and North Korea. All else is only fit for "Russia Today"
Richard Wellings @RichardWellings · 14h They stopped new reservoirs and now there's a water crisis. They forced power stations to close and now there's an energy crisis. They switched land to biofuels and now there's a food crisis. See how the green agenda works yet? please log in to view this image telegraph.co.uk Keeping the country short of water is now government – and EU – policy Failure to fix leaks and increase reservoir capacity are behind our water problems.
I know we've already gone through this, but in my opinion this is far too simplistic. I think there are very obviously good and bad guys, most of the time, when a tyrant decides to invade another country etc. As I said, it's once that war starts that the lines get blurred. This never excuses going against the Geneva convention etc though. Also, and this clearly isn't aimed at you, people who decide what should happen in a contact, who have never experienced the zing of live rounds whizzing by, shouldn't moralise in my opinion.
