kravietz 🦇 on Nostr: There's a group of military experts who feel obliged to have a strong opinion on ...
There's a group of military experts who feel obliged to have a strong opinion on today's bombing of Belgorod. It usually goes like "okay, if we condemn Russia for attacking civilian objects, then we should also condemn Ukraine per the same rules". The mistake here is in mixing two moral systems:
* one based on international humanitarian law, proportionality and protection of civilians
* one based on pre-modern rules of excessive retaliation
#Russia has removed itself from the first system in April 2014, when it started an extremely brutal war in Donbas #Ukraine where its troops with removed insignia routinely performed extrajudicial executions of civilians. Russia has confirmed its removal when it denied shooting down MH17, and it cemented this removal when it continued extrajudicial executions in Kyiv oblast' in March 2022, and then publicly announced its intention to freeze Ukrainians and Europeans to death. That has been said and it cannot be unsaid after they have notoriously pounding Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for two years. It cannot be unsaid when they fired dozens of imprecise S-300 rockets on Ukrainian towns on 29 December, and then repeated it today in Kharkiv.
It's obvious that the 29 December attack was a retaliation on Ukrainian society for successful operations of Ukrainian army: downing total 5 Russian aircrafts and sinking one large ship. Russian weren't able to find an equivalent military target so they just hit anything they could — that is towns, because they don't move. They did exactly that last year after Kerch Bridge was damaged and they publicly explained that the hits on civilian infrastructure are a retaliation for the bridge.
Russians have been largely playing the war by the tribal rules simply because they know it better — the informal morality has long ago first amended and then practically replaced the formal system of laws in their civilian life.
Ukrainians have been mostly sticking to the formal rules — there haven't been any "retaliatory strikes" declared by Ukraine following even the most hideous Russian war crimes, probably because the widespread belief was that it's not what works. The rational logic suggests that what matters is the destruction of your enemy's military potential and sinking of "Novocherkassk" will be more painful than destroying a roof on one Kremlin tower (2022).
But rational logic applies to rational players, that is those working by modern rules. But Russia doesn't. Or, more precisely, it flexibly switches between pre-modern and modern rules whenever it suits her. This is precisely why Russia responded to Kerch bridge attack with "retaliatory strikes" on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, and this is why it attacked civilian targets after " Novocherkassk". And then happily switched back to quasi-legal haggling about "Ukrainian anti-air" in UN Security Council yesterday, only to completely forget this narrative today on the same tribune.
My interpretation of today's alleged Ukraine's hits at Belgorod were intended to sober up Russian political and military command and signal them that whatever game they're playing, it can eventually take two players. It's a reminder that while Ukraine has been so far withholding from applying the rules of excessive retaliation, it can, if necessary.
While many Western commentators interpreted this as unnecessary escalation, I would like to remind everyone that Russians had been unnecessarily escalating the war since day one. And they did so exclusively because they hold an immutable belief in their own impunity. Judging from the reactions on Russian military channels, at least the medium layer understood the message perfectly well.
* one based on international humanitarian law, proportionality and protection of civilians
* one based on pre-modern rules of excessive retaliation
#Russia has removed itself from the first system in April 2014, when it started an extremely brutal war in Donbas #Ukraine where its troops with removed insignia routinely performed extrajudicial executions of civilians. Russia has confirmed its removal when it denied shooting down MH17, and it cemented this removal when it continued extrajudicial executions in Kyiv oblast' in March 2022, and then publicly announced its intention to freeze Ukrainians and Europeans to death. That has been said and it cannot be unsaid after they have notoriously pounding Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for two years. It cannot be unsaid when they fired dozens of imprecise S-300 rockets on Ukrainian towns on 29 December, and then repeated it today in Kharkiv.
It's obvious that the 29 December attack was a retaliation on Ukrainian society for successful operations of Ukrainian army: downing total 5 Russian aircrafts and sinking one large ship. Russian weren't able to find an equivalent military target so they just hit anything they could — that is towns, because they don't move. They did exactly that last year after Kerch Bridge was damaged and they publicly explained that the hits on civilian infrastructure are a retaliation for the bridge.
Russians have been largely playing the war by the tribal rules simply because they know it better — the informal morality has long ago first amended and then practically replaced the formal system of laws in their civilian life.
Ukrainians have been mostly sticking to the formal rules — there haven't been any "retaliatory strikes" declared by Ukraine following even the most hideous Russian war crimes, probably because the widespread belief was that it's not what works. The rational logic suggests that what matters is the destruction of your enemy's military potential and sinking of "Novocherkassk" will be more painful than destroying a roof on one Kremlin tower (2022).
But rational logic applies to rational players, that is those working by modern rules. But Russia doesn't. Or, more precisely, it flexibly switches between pre-modern and modern rules whenever it suits her. This is precisely why Russia responded to Kerch bridge attack with "retaliatory strikes" on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, and this is why it attacked civilian targets after " Novocherkassk". And then happily switched back to quasi-legal haggling about "Ukrainian anti-air" in UN Security Council yesterday, only to completely forget this narrative today on the same tribune.
My interpretation of today's alleged Ukraine's hits at Belgorod were intended to sober up Russian political and military command and signal them that whatever game they're playing, it can eventually take two players. It's a reminder that while Ukraine has been so far withholding from applying the rules of excessive retaliation, it can, if necessary.
While many Western commentators interpreted this as unnecessary escalation, I would like to remind everyone that Russians had been unnecessarily escalating the war since day one. And they did so exclusively because they hold an immutable belief in their own impunity. Judging from the reactions on Russian military channels, at least the medium layer understood the message perfectly well.