You won't get an answer, The amnesty stupid comments report has given them the opportunity to say well both sides. Yet I have heard of no one else saying conventions have been broken not a single government. Well apart from one. I asked if the UN made comment got no answer.
@Hobgoblin11 is failing badly at it then.
Amnesty are living in a fantasy land. Of course their actions are excused or not even requiring an excuse - are justifiable. Russia is hitting civilian targets regardless of military presence. How are Ukraine to defend them?
It is also nothing more than weasel words and both sidesism to draw any equivalence between Amnesty's criticism of Ukraine's action and that of Russia's.
You were asked what part of the Geneva convention Ukraine violated.
"You might want to give brief explanation of where Ukraine breached article 8, while also defending Russia for witdrawing from various protocols of the Geneva convention."
You replied to my post but not this one. Therefore it is reasonable to presume that you cannot.
If its the Russians fault for making the nuclear plant a target, is it not also the Ukrainians fault for making certain residential areas a target?
And how does that contradict anything I have said?
Russia have committed war crimes and have been called out as such - but that does not excuse the actions of the other side
Exactly, that was exactly what I meant about it being game changer. And even if it was a Ukrainian bomb that hit it, even by accident, I'd still blame the Russians for making it a target by using it as a launch point for attacks on Ukraine. For every little thing that is happening or will happen in the future in Ukraine, its all 100% Russia's fault, and theirs alone.
Vinnytsia was an obvious one. They fired missiles at the city, which is to the west of Kyiv and hundreds of miles from the front and "claimed" their target was some sort of meeting of international arms dealers (but instead killed a load of civilians).....an example of a blatant war crime.
Do you?
Russia has hit Ukrainian cities where Amnesty stated there was no Ukrainian military activity.
Russia hit marketplaces in Syria. Again, no claims of any military activity.
Russia hits cities whether there is military there or not.
A hit causing a radioactive cloud to go over a nato member could be cause for that member to invoke article 5
I said -10 to -20 and they certainly do happen. I lived in a city of 250,000 people where temputure dropped below -10 everynight for 4 months with the exception of maybe 5 or 6 nights, and most of the appartment blocks in that city were heated only by Gas or Electricity. No open wood or coal burning fires.
Exactly,,and without resorting to nuclear weapons either!!! ( unless Vladimir decided to use the in response, but if he did that, then it would be end game, not just for Vlada, but the world, and I'd say that the self same Vlada, is still too fond of Life for that to happen)
Maybe this
Before electricity perhaps?
Or maybe people didn’t live in that area before electricity?
Or maybe they’d have other other forms of fuel then that they wouldn’t have now.
Do you have any evidence that the Ukrainian population are unhappy with how their armed forces are conducting the war? This is where the Amnesty International report totally falls down (it would seem quite nonsensical that they are blaming the Ukrainian government for civilian deaths and not the hated Russian fascist regime).
Bonus you would not even need boots on the ground. Air superiority bombing anything important. Take out all C&C all basses, atrillary. in 8 hours you could just have grunts left on the ground Ukraine mops up job done.
Have a second read of my post. " if it happens that the powerplant takes a direct destructive hit from the Russian's, then all restrictions regarding retaliation should be off the table, including massive strikes against all Russians on the territory of Ukraine by NATO, and that includes Crimea. "
A direct hit on a nuclear power plant, would not be a game changer in your opinion?
Timmy you seem to be avoiding a question there, might conisder having a crack at answering, just plastering the place with "both sides" guff is a bit suss.
They aren't, sure how would they know? All they do is quote claims.
"... with Ukraine and Russia again blaming each other for the attack."
Also
"Ukraine says Russia has turned the site into a military base, launching attacks from there knowing that Ukrainian forces are unlikely to retaliate."
There are photos of the Russians in the site near the reactors and where you'd assume the fire services are near, so it's a fair question to ask why they would start shelling themselves.
Yeah but Mariupol lost all its artillery and the stuff you mentioned. Guess what happened Russia Could not get past Guys with guns and RPGS so started shelling the city. So your theory goes out the window. They will shell regardless of what is in the city.
The "best" strategy would be to use human shields. Its not ethical or moral though. Thats why we have these rules and laws on how warfare should be conducted between nations. Siting artillery batteries and other military targets in close proximity to high density residential areas is not excusable under any circumstances.
It's already been refuted multiple times, that won't stop some buckos
Here's a twitter thread on someone who dealt with the lead investigator, makes for interesting reading:
You really think an effective strategy against an invading force who has superior firepower is to limit your forces to easily identifiable locations and not have mobile units shifting position from which to attempt to launch counter attacks to repel the invaders? Laughable really
Your contention is that they are deliberately setting up in residential areas to use civilians as cover. What they are in fact doing is moving their forces to enable them to complete an adequate defence.
In your defence of a fictitious invasion of Dublin the best course of action would be to locate the forces defending in the Phoenix park eh?
Then We should inform the world of the revolutionary battle strategy of protecting cities. Let's put all our kit in one area and hope they don't realise. The big part you are leaving out is Ukraine is the defender who did not start the war. I suggest you read up on battle tactics in relation to urban warfare. If they did not have said equipment there Russian advance happens faster. Which leads to intense street fighting were tones of civilians die. You think Russians will not roll in tanks and start shelling buildings destroying the place because of civilians ?
You can protect populated areas without using them for cover.
Setting up mortars, AA, ammo dumps in residential neighbourhoods is not protecting anything. There are next to no towns and cities that do not have industrial estates, commercial areas, and other spaces where military operations can be conducted. Doing it next to schools and highrise apartments is just an attempt to hide behind human shields.
See above
You could work in Croke Park with all that goalpost shifting
Except months of -20 nights for millions has never happened.
Yes as it's incorrect. A defending army is supposed to protect the populous including cities. Do you blame the Ukrainians for turning Kyiv into a fortress ? If they had not the war would lightly be over and civilians would be fighting the occupying army. Do you blame the Ukrainians for Mariupol ?
This is what they claim they are violating
Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations
Wheras reality is they are locating their forces in areas in order to defend those areas. Timmy will claim they should instead defend uninhabited zones and leave the cities undefended for the Russians to occupy
Its not all wind, Sweden and Norways export are hydro.
What makes up the difference? Russian Gas, and that is the point I have been making all along.
We can from our temperate zone mild wintered little island act the high mighty keyboard warriors in comfort and lecture Germans, Czechs, Estonians, Slovaks, Austrians about sending money to Russia. The consequences for us when Russian Gas is cut off is a few rolling power cuts when we might get a couple of nights of -2, the consequences of severe power cuts north of the Alps are 10s of millions living through weeks or months of nights of -10 to -20 with no heating.
Lots of articles but I don't see a report.
Articles report facts and an actual report comes to a conclusion. The Amnesty report about Ukraine came to all the wrong conclusions.
They never once took into consideration that Ukraine is defending itself, that's a massive omission. Yes Ukraine placed artillery in built up areas (after trying to help evacuate civilians) to defend the area. They didn't do it to turn them into human shields, which is exactly what Russia has done and continues to do.
But its Anti-Ukrainian for Amnesty to point out facts about their conduct?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5117ec177439400b1e5944f4d30acdda.svg)
