Ukrainian War Thread III: The Horrors

[Antipatros]

I'm sorry but that opens the floodgates to all kinds of human rights abuses

war crimes do not become okay when it just so happens they're performed by YOUR side

As I said many times before, and will say many times after, if my side committed war crimes against civilians of the opposing side, I would oppose it. It would not matter if the civilians come from a country whose government has committed crimes against humanity or not, because war crimes against any civilian is wrong.

However, if the opposing side did commit war crimes against my side, and harmed civilians in particular, I feel it would be just for revenge to be taken against these "soldiers," especially in circumstances where it is very unlikely that they will face trial for their crimes against humanity. And in this war, it is safe to say that even if Ukraine delivers a complete military victory against Russia, I am not sure if the current government in Russia would ever permit war criminals on their side to face trial for their crimes.

If a guy has a gun in his hands and is trying to invade/pillage/destroy, that's one thing. If he surrenders to you or is lying on the ground in a defenseless state, it's time to stop.

I don't care if they're a war criminal. If they are, it's infinitely better to take them prisoner and then put them on trial.

[Kalaron]

I'm sorry but that opens the floodgates to all kinds of human rights abuses

war crimes do not become okay when it just so happens they're performed by YOUR side

As I said many times before, and will say many times after, if my side committed war crimes against civilians of the opposing side, I would oppose it. It would not matter if the civilians come from a country whose government has committed crimes against humanity or not, because war crimes against any civilian is wrong.

However, if the opposing side did commit war crimes against my side, and harmed civilians in particular, I feel it would be just for revenge to be taken against these "soldiers," especially in circumstances where it is very unlikely that they will face trial for their crimes against humanity. And in this war, it is safe to say that even if Ukraine delivers a complete military victory against Russia, I am not sure if the current government in Russia would ever permit war criminals on their side to face trial for their crimes.

And what, exactly, is the demarcation between being a "guilty" soldier and an "OK" one? What happens if the soldier in question wasn't even from the unit in Bucha? Do you even care about the fact that there's more than a few Russian soldiers who didn't agree with the lead-up to this war?

It radiates pure "tough-guyism" to be OK with the murder of unarmed and wounded men on the basis that some other douchebag decided to be a psychopath.

[Ifreann]

Oh, well, in that case.

I wish that there were a significant Proletariat throughout the world. IMO, class-conscious Proletarians would not have fallen for Putin's BS.

A fine excuse for looking down your nose at most of the world.

---

I'm sorry but that opens the floodgates to all kinds of human rights abuses

war crimes do not become okay when it just so happens they're performed by YOUR side

As I said many times before, and will say many times after, if my side committed war crimes against civilians of the opposing side, I would oppose it. It would not matter if the civilians come from a country whose government has committed crimes against humanity or not, because war crimes against any civilian is wrong.

However, if the opposing side did commit war crimes against my side, and harmed civilians in particular, I feel it would be just for revenge to be taken against these "soldiers," especially in circumstances where it is very unlikely that they will face trial for their crimes against humanity. And in this war, it is safe to say that even if Ukraine delivers a complete military victory against Russia, I am not sure if the current government in Russia would ever permit war criminals on their side to face trial for their crimes.

"War crimes are only okay when I do them"

[Port Caverton]

What in God's name is wrong with the Russians?!

This is basically Nazi Germany or USSR tactics.

The Nazis deported Ukrainians and sold them into slavery, the Soviets did the same to the gulags.

Now I am 100% in favor of sending troops (no nukes, think Desert Storm, fire some anti-ground missiles, blow up vehicles, help Ukraine assert sovereignty, leave).

NATO should just intervene at this point. Civilians are being raped and murdered by the hundreds and we aren't doing anything about it. NATO would easily be able to push Russia right out of Ukraine. If we don't intervene, then we are just letting people die. Maybe we can even take out Putin while were at it.

Liberate Belarus and Ukraine from Russian occupiers!

[Port Caverton]

"War crimes are only okay when I do them"

The motto of every great power

[Luziyca]

As I said many times before, and will say many times after, if my side committed war crimes against civilians of the opposing side, I would oppose it. It would not matter if the civilians come from a country whose government has committed crimes against humanity or not, because war crimes against any civilian is wrong.

However, if the opposing side did commit war crimes against my side, and harmed civilians in particular, I feel it would be just for revenge to be taken against these "soldiers," especially in circumstances where it is very unlikely that they will face trial for their crimes against humanity. And in this war, it is safe to say that even if Ukraine delivers a complete military victory against Russia, I am not sure if the current government in Russia would ever permit war criminals on their side to face trial for their crimes.

Okay, but that still means that your side risks losing the moral high ground, one of Ukraine’s greatest assets in this war. If people become disgusted with Ukraine’s behaviour and turn on them, they will lose, point blank.

As I have said before, the rules of war exist because there are active, military advantages to complying with them, otherwise they wouldn’t be government policy. Violate them at your peril.

As long as the revenge isn't worse than the original crime that provoked it, Ukraine would still have the high ground over Russian forces.

As I said many times before, and will say many times after, if my side committed war crimes against civilians of the opposing side, I would oppose it. It would not matter if the civilians come from a country whose government has committed crimes against humanity or not, because war crimes against any civilian is wrong.

However, if the opposing side did commit war crimes against my side, and harmed civilians in particular, I feel it would be just for revenge to be taken against these "soldiers," especially in circumstances where it is very unlikely that they will face trial for their crimes against humanity. And in this war, it is safe to say that even if Ukraine delivers a complete military victory against Russia, I am not sure if the current government in Russia would ever permit war criminals on their side to face trial for their crimes.

And what, exactly, is the demarcation between being a "guilty" soldier and an "OK" one? What happens if the soldier in question wasn't even from the unit in Bucha? Do you even care about the fact that there's more than a few Russian soldiers who didn't agree with the lead-up to this war?

It radiates pure "tough-guyism" to be OK with the murder of unarmed and wounded men on the basis that some other douchebag decided to be a psychopath.

1) An "OK" soldier would be one who never committed any war crimes during the invasion, while a "guilty" soldier would be one who did.
2) It's not just Bucha where crimes against humanity have been committed. War crimes have been committed in Mariupol, Irpin, Mykolaiv, and countless other cities in Ukraine. There is a Wikipedia article detailing the war crimes that have been committed thus far.
3) I reckon most of those who didn't agree with the lead-up to the war would not be the sort of guys eager to commit war crimes, and would be more likely to have done everything they can in their power to avoid following those orders.

As for your last point, if I were in charge, there should be thorough investigations as to every Russian "soldier" to determine whether or not they have committed war crimes. Those who cannot be proven to have done any can be repatriated back to Russia, while those who have been proven should be tried and punished for their activities.

NATO should just intervene at this point. Civilians are being raped and murdered by the hundreds and we aren't doing anything about it. NATO would easily be able to push Russia right out of Ukraine. If we don't intervene, then we are just letting people die. Maybe we can even take out Putin while were at it.

I agree with you 100%, even if it does lead to nuclear war.

[Umeria]

NATO should just intervene at this point. Civilians are being raped and murdered by the hundreds and we aren't doing anything about it. NATO would easily be able to push Russia right out of Ukraine. If we don't intervene, then we are just letting people die. Maybe we can even take out Putin while were at it.

I agree with you 100%, even if it does lead to nuclear war.

How about we don't end all life on Earth?

[Kalaron]

Okay, but that still means that your side risks losing the moral high ground, one of Ukraine’s greatest assets in this war. If people become disgusted with Ukraine’s behaviour and turn on them, they will lose, point blank.

As I have said before, the rules of war exist because there are active, military advantages to complying with them, otherwise they wouldn’t be government policy. Violate them at your peril.

As long as the revenge isn't worse than the original crime that provoked it, Ukraine would still have the high ground over Russian forces.

And what, exactly, is the demarcation between being a "guilty" soldier and an "OK" one? What happens if the soldier in question wasn't even from the unit in Bucha? Do you even care about the fact that there's more than a few Russian soldiers who didn't agree with the lead-up to this war?

It radiates pure "tough-guyism" to be OK with the murder of unarmed and wounded men on the basis that some other douchebag decided to be a psychopath.

1) An "OK" soldier would be one who never committed any war crimes during the invasion, while a "guilty" soldier would be one who did.
2) It's not just Bucha where crimes against humanity have been committed. War crimes have been committed in Mariupol, Irpin, Mykolaiv, and countless other cities in Ukraine. There is a Wikipedia article detailing the war crimes that have been committed thus far.
3) I reckon most of those who didn't agree with the lead-up to the war would not be the sort of guys eager to commit war crimes, and would be more likely to have done everything they can in their power to avoid following those orders.

As for your last point, if I were in charge, there should be thorough investigations as to every Russian "soldier" to determine whether or not they have committed war crimes. Those who cannot be proven to have done any can be repatriated back to Russia, while those who have been proven should be tried and punished for their activities.

NATO should just intervene at this point. Civilians are being raped and murdered by the hundreds and we aren't doing anything about it. NATO would easily be able to push Russia right out of Ukraine. If we don't intervene, then we are just letting people die. Maybe we can even take out Putin while were at it.

I agree with you 100%, even if it does lead to nuclear war.

And you're 100% certain the soldier who was murdered by his captors was a a war criminal?

[Port Caverton]

I agree with you 100%, even if it does lead to nuclear war.

How about we don't end all life on Earth?

So we should just let civilians get deported, raped and killed in Ukraine then?

[Mestovakia]

How about we don't end all life on Earth?

So we should just let civilians get deported, raped and killed in Ukraine then?

Or, you know, we could pick a more reasonable course of action than starting WW3?

[Umeria]

How about we don't end all life on Earth?

So we should just let civilians get deported, raped and killed in Ukraine then?

We should try to stop it in every way that doesn't involve ending all life on Earth. It's unsettling that this needs to be stated.

[Port Caverton]

So we should just let civilians get deported, raped and killed in Ukraine then?

Or, you know, we could pick a more reasonable course of action than starting WW3?

So we should just let civilians get deported, raped and killed in Ukraine then?

We should try to stop it in every way that doesn't involve ending all life on Earth. It's unsettling that this needs to be stated.

What should we do then? Sanctions aren't stopping Russia from killing Ukranians

[Washington Resistance Army]

The EU is speedrunning getting Ukraine into the organization it seems.

[Luziyca]

As long as the revenge isn't worse than the original crime that provoked it, Ukraine would still have the high ground over Russian forces.


1) An "OK" soldier would be one who never committed any war crimes during the invasion, while a "guilty" soldier would be one who did.
2) It's not just Bucha where crimes against humanity have been committed. War crimes have been committed in Mariupol, Irpin, Mykolaiv, and countless other cities in Ukraine. There is a Wikipedia article detailing the war crimes that have been committed thus far.
3) I reckon most of those who didn't agree with the lead-up to the war would not be the sort of guys eager to commit war crimes, and would be more likely to have done everything they can in their power to avoid following those orders.

As for your last point, if I were in charge, there should be thorough investigations as to every Russian "soldier" to determine whether or not they have committed war crimes. Those who cannot be proven to have done any can be repatriated back to Russia, while those who have been proven should be tried and punished for their activities.


I agree with you 100%, even if it does lead to nuclear war.

And you're 100% certain the soldier who was murdered by his captors was a a war criminal?

I'm not 100% certain that the "soldier" is a war criminal, but I am more than willing to give the captors the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out that guy is innocent, then the captors should be punished.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So we should just let civilians get deported, raped and killed in Ukraine then?

We should try to stop it in every way that doesn't involve ending all life on Earth. It's unsettling that this needs to be stated.

A nuclear war between Russia and the west wouldn't even end all life in the northern hemisphere, to say nothing of the global south which would largely be untouched.

That's not to say it wouldn't be bad because it would be, but we do not have anywhere near weapons to end life on the planet.

[Free Algerstonia]

As I said many times before, and will say many times after, if my side committed war crimes against civilians of the opposing side, I would oppose it. It would not matter if the civilians come from a country whose government has committed crimes against humanity or not, because war crimes against any civilian is wrong.

However, if the opposing side did commit war crimes against my side, and harmed civilians in particular, I feel it would be just for revenge to be taken against these "soldiers," especially in circumstances where it is very unlikely that they will face trial for their crimes against humanity. And in this war, it is safe to say that even if Ukraine delivers a complete military victory against Russia, I am not sure if the current government in Russia would ever permit war criminals on their side to face trial for their crimes.

Okay, but that still means that your side risks losing the moral high ground, one of Ukraine’s greatest assets in this war. If people become disgusted with Ukraine’s behaviour and turn on them, they will lose, point blank.

As I have said before, the rules of war exist because there are active, military advantages to complying with them, otherwise they wouldn’t be government policy. Violate them at your peril.

war momentum is not determined by the support of terminally online redditors

[Umeria]

We should try to stop it in every way that doesn't involve ending all life on Earth. It's unsettling that this needs to be stated.

A nuclear war between Russia and the west wouldn't even end all life in the northern hemisphere, to say nothing of the global south which would largely be untouched.

That's not to say it wouldn't be bad because it would be, but we do not have anywhere near weapons to end life on the planet.

Not immediately, but then you get nuclear winter and radiation. Can't grow food when the sun has been blotted out. I suppose bacteria and maybe some insects would survive.

[Kalaron]

And you're 100% certain the soldier who was murdered by his captors was a a war criminal?

I'm not 100% certain that the "soldier" is a war criminal, but I am more than willing to give the captors the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out that guy is innocent, then the captors should be punished.

And how, praytell, will this be found out? Do you really think the Ukes will bother to determine who shot him, not to mention whether they could even find out if he committed some crime in the first place?

And for that matter, how exactly will they determine whether he was a "criminal" or not? Even if he was assigned to Bucha, under your own definition it'd be impossible to determine whether he did everything in his power to avoid the murder of civilians, what are you gonna do, sniff his gun's barrel to differentiate whether he shot above them or into them?
All of this ignores that it's extremely unlilely the Ukes executed someone they actually knew was a criminal. They probably just shot the first Russian POW they got their hands on.

[Senkaku]

We should try to stop it in every way that doesn't involve ending all life on Earth. It's unsettling that this needs to be stated.

A nuclear war between Russia and the west wouldn't even end all life in the northern hemisphere, to say nothing of the global south which would largely be untouched.

That's not to say it wouldn't be bad because it would be, but we do not have anywhere near weapons to end life on the planet.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you're measuring a conflict's death toll in "percentage of total northern hemisphere population per hour," it's something we should avoid, even if that number is lower than 100

[Umeria]

We should try to stop it in every way that doesn't involve ending all life on Earth. It's unsettling that this needs to be stated.

What should we do then? Sanctions aren't stopping Russia from killing Ukranians

What the US and NATO are doing right now is pretty reasonable, although I probably wouldn't have done so many sanctions since as you said they don't really work.

It seems like many people here view this as the extreme pacifist position, which says a lot about how far the overton window has shifted recently.

[Senkaku]

I'm not 100% certain that the "soldier" is a war criminal, but I am more than willing to give the captors the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out that guy is innocent, then the captors should be punished.

Why? It's not their job, Ukraine is a country with laws and courts, and a signatory to international agreements that specifically prohibit these sorts of atrocities. They should be punished regardless of if the victim was innocent or not; summary executions are a crime no matter who they're performed on and regardless of whether the other side is also committing them. Either you are against war crimes or you're not, you can't only be against one side's war crimes.

And by the way, even if you're totally unconcerned with and indifferent about the morality of summary execution of prisoners (which, rather upsettingly, you seem to be), consider what a propaganda coup this sort of thing is for the Kremlin, in the context of a contested global information environment. The information war has been crucial to mobilizing support in the West for Ukraine, without which they are unlikely to be able to continue resisting the Russian onslaught. How does Ukraine expect to maintain that support, if more incidents like this start happening, and the moral case for supporting their war effort starts to be eroded in the West by constant images of this sort of atrocity?

[Rusozak]

And you're 100% certain the soldier who was murdered by his captors was a a war criminal?

I'm not 100% certain that the "soldier" is a war criminal, but I am more than willing to give the captors the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out that guy is innocent, then the captors should be punished.

When it comes to Russians, it's a safer bet to err on the side of war criminal.

[Senkaku]

As long as the revenge isn't worse than the original crime that provoked it, Ukraine would still have the high ground over Russian forces.

Who decides whether it's "worse" or not, random soldiers on the front line, or a proper judicial tribunal...? Is that "high ground" going to be worth it when the Russians retaliate in kind and the situation continues to escalate? Random, blameless soldiers on both sides are going to be tortured and killed as a consequence of the kind of bloodthirsty indifference that people like you are expressing-- you are enabling and giving permission for leaders to turn a blind eye.

And again-- even if you don't really care about the morality of killing prisoners, consider that these sort of atrocities massively undermine Ukrainian propaganda and supercharge the Kremlin's.

[Washington Resistance Army]

A nuclear war between Russia and the west wouldn't even end all life in the northern hemisphere, to say nothing of the global south which would largely be untouched.

That's not to say it wouldn't be bad because it would be, but we do not have anywhere near weapons to end life on the planet.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you're measuring a conflict's death toll in "percentage of total northern hemisphere population per hour," it's something we should avoid, even if that number is lower than 100

Oh 100% you're right, it's just inaccurate to view nuclear arms as something capable of actually ending life on the planet. It'd be bad, terribly so, but not that extreme.

A nuclear war between Russia and the west wouldn't even end all life in the northern hemisphere, to say nothing of the global south which would largely be untouched.

That's not to say it wouldn't be bad because it would be, but we do not have anywhere near weapons to end life on the planet.

Not immediately, but then you get nuclear winter and radiation. Can't grow food when the sun has been blotted out. I suppose bacteria and maybe some insects would survive.

There isn't any serious scientific evidence that nuclear winter exists tbh. Both the firebombing of Japan in WW2 and the burning of the Kuwaiti oil wells should have produced localized (non)nuclear winters under the theory but neither did.

Radiation from nuclear weapons is also generally misunderstood. Unless they're salted or something airburst weapons are actually relatively clean in terms of radiation dispersed, it'd die down to livable levels pretty quickly. Even with ground detonated weapons it doesn't take terribly long for the radiation to subside to a more acceptable level, it's why you can visit nuclear test sites in places like Nevada despite them being nuked literally hundreds of times.

[Senkaku]

I'm not 100% certain that the "soldier" is a war criminal, but I am more than willing to give the captors the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out that guy is innocent, then the captors should be punished.

When it comes to Russians, it's a safer bet to err on the side of war criminal.

You are literally saying extrajudicial murder is fine for an entire nationality of people. This is fucking deranged.