The Brink of War?

[Moses]

As I reply to myself:

Yep, there he goes, ordering massive missile strikes against civilian targets for his revenge.

Reports of whole towns, homes, farms, hospitals, utility services, and even a children's playground all turned to dust.

The most pronounced definition of a "Coward".

Bullshit. In "civilian targets" 11 killed in 50 strikes?

All strikes besides 1, were targeted on powerplants and bridges: railroads and communications. The only one was targeted to park in the center of Kiev near president's office. Because under that park is located president's bunker. It was warning "knock" - "we know where you are". And nobody was injured in that strike.

Once again: 11 died in 50 strikes. It is 15 times less then on the Crimean bridge: 0,2 per Russian strike and 3 in Ukrainian strike on the bridge.

— Krivorozhskaya TPP. It is the third largest in Ukraine. Electricity was cut off in the city, problems with water supply. The railway stopped and communication stopped working.

- Three thermal power plants, as well as one substation in Kyiv. The local thermal power plant is on fire, the work of the metro has been stopped. The railway stopped and communication stopped working.

— Pridneprovskaya CHPP, located near the city of Dnipro. The railway stopped and communication stopped working.

— CHPP-1 in Lviv. The work of city thermal power plants has been stopped, there is no water and electricity in the city. The railway stopped and communication stopped working.

— Burshtynska TPP in Ivano-Frankivsk. The railway stopped and communication stopped working.

— Substations in Khmelnitsky, Rivne, and Ternopil. These three cities now have no electricity. The railway stopped and communication stopped working.

- Substation Konotop near the city of Sumy. There are problems with electricity throughout the region. The railway stopped and communication stopped working.

- Zmievskaya TPP (near Kharkov), which provides electricity to Kharkov, Poltava and Sumy regions. In Kharkiv itself there is no electricity, water or communications. The subway is also not working. The railway stopped and communication stopped working.

[Moses]

After first diversion near Moscow in August Ukraine lost 4 power plants and one dam. Lesson hadn't learned.

After second diversion on Crimean bridge Ukraine lost 11 power plants.

To make new diversions or not - it is Ukrainian choice.

[Dodger]

Bullshit. In "civilian targets" 11 killed in 50 strikes?

If any of those 11 were your family members the number of strikes would be totally irrelevant.

[Moses]

If any of those 11 were your family members the number of strikes would be totally irrelevant.

Well do you know military conflicts without killed civilians? At least nobody who is honest can tell what these strikes weren't precision: 0.2 killed per strike. I think these persons were security or technicians on powerplants.

[Dragonman]

The Indian news channel WION now reports that the death toll is 19 - "Death toll rises to 19 in Russian missile strikes on Ukrainian cities" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4zyBZYXH_Q), with more than 100 wounded.

Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 52, provides for the general protection of civilian objects, hindering attacks to military objectives in a war between two or more belligerents. Article 52 states, "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

According to that definition, the Kherson Bridge would have been a legitimate target, and an attack on it not a terrorist attack as it has been used to resupply the Russian Federation's armed forces in illegally-annexed Crimea.

Claiming that it was not because the Russian invasion is only "a special military operation" is irrelevant now that Russian media commentators are said to be referring to the invasion as a "war."

Interestingly, so far, Russia has provided no hard evidence that the attack was carried out by Ukrainian forces, merely allegations.

The UN is now saying the Russian response (i.e., showering Ukrainian sites with 83 missiles) may have violated international humanitarian law - "Deadly Russian strikes may have violated international law principles - UN. 1h ago" (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...cfe38e0079fdc3). That is, they are terrorist attacks

[Moses]

The Indian news channel WION now reports that the death toll is 19 - "Death toll rises to 19 in Russian missile strikes on Ukrainian cities" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4zyBZYXH_Q), with more than 100 wounded.

Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 52, provides for the general protection of civilian objects, hindering attacks to military objectives in a war between two or more belligerents. Article 52 states, "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

According to that definition, the Kherson Bridge would have been a legitimate target, and an attack on it not a terrorist attack as it has been used to resupply the Russian Federation's armed forces in illegally-annexed Crimea.

Claiming that it was not because the Russian invasion is only "a special military operation" is irrelevant now that Russian media commentators are said to be referring to the invasion as a "war."

Interestingly, so far, Russia has provided no hard evidence that the attack was carried out by Ukrainian forces, merely allegations.

Well. I can tell the same about car explosion on Crimean bride few days ago. These 3 weren't military. And for sure nobody can call Dugina who died in car explosion near Moscow in August "military objective". She wasn't military officer or even civilian manager in state administration.

By the way: since March 2018 there is no "hard evidence" and no court decision about "Saulsberry case" in UK. But UK still blame Russians, because of "highly likely".

[Moses]

Hague Rules of Air Warfare
According to Article 24(2) of the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare, “factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively military supplies” are military objectives.
New Delhi Draft Rules
Paragraph I of the proposed annex to Article 7(2) of the 1956 New Delhi Draft Rules provided:
The objectives belonging to the following categories are those considered to be of generally recognized military importance:
…
(8) Industries of fundamental importance for the conduct of the war:
(a) industries for the manufacture of armaments such as weapons, munitions, rockets, armoured vehicles, military aircraft, fighting ships, including the manufacture of accessories and all other war material;
(b) industries for the manufacture of supplies and material of a military character, such as transport and communications material, equipment for the armed forces;
(c) factories or plants constituting other production and manufacturing centres of fundamental importance for the conduct of war, such as the metallurgical, engineering and chemical industries, whose nature and purpose is essentially military;
(d) storage and transport installations whose basic function it is to serve the industries referred to in (a)–(c);
(e) installations providing energy mainly for national defence, e.g. coal, other fuels, or atomic energy, and plants producing gas or electricity mainly for military consumption.
(9) Installations constituting experimental, research centres for experiments on and the development of weapons and war material.

Some examples:

Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) provides as an example of military objectives:
… power stations [and] industry which support military operations … industrial installations producing materiel for combat forces, fuel dumps and distribution centres supplying military users, industrial installations that repair and replenish lines of communication and other economic targets the destruction, capture or neutralisation of which offers a definite military advantage.
The manual adds: “Economic targets that indirectly but effectively support operations are also military objectives if an attack will gain a definite military advantage.”

Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states:
The purpose of combat between belligerents is to weaken and eliminate the power of resistance of the enemy.
This resistance is provided in the first place by the armed forces of a Party to the conflict. As a result, acts of violence are in the first place directed against the military potential of the adversary (the army, its positions, provision of its supplies, its stores, workshops, arsenals, depots, defence works, vehicles, aircraft, war buildings, etc.).
But this resistance also depends on the economic power of the adversary (its war industry, its production capacity, its sources of supply, etc.); in short, its economic potential. The breaking up of this economic potential has of course a direct influence on the armed forces’ capacity to resist, so that this economic potential also becomes a war objective

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) considers that “military bases, warehouses, petroleum storage areas” are “generally accepted as being military objectives”.
The manual adds that “industrial installations producing material for armed forces; … conventional power plants; and … fuel dumps” “depending on the circumstances, may constitute military objectives”

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides that military objectives include, in particular, “economic objectives which make an effective contribution to military action (transport facilities, industrial plants, etc.)”

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states that “energy installations [and] war supporting industries are examples of objects universally regarded as military objectives”.
The manual further states:
Industrial installations producing materiel for combat forces, fuel dumps and distribution centres supplying military users, and industrial installations that repair and replenish lines of communication (such as conventional power plants and vehicle plants), and other economic targets may be attacked if they meet the criteria for military objectives.
In general, the manual considers that:
Economic targets that indirectly but effectively support enemy operations may also be attacked to gain a definite military advantage. For example, an 1870 international arbitral tribunal recognized that the destruction of cotton was justified during the American Civil War since the sale of cotton provided funds for almost all Confederate arms and ammunition. Authorization to attack such targets will be reserved to higher authority.

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that “economic and industrial objectives that make a real and effective contribution to military action” are military objectives.

United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states:
Proper objects of attack also include enemy lines of communication, rail yards, bridges, rolling stock, barges, lighters, industrial installations producing war-fighting products, and power generation plants. Economic objects of the enemy that indirectly but effectively support and sustain the enemy’s war-fighting capability may also be attacked.

United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated that Iraq’s electricity production facilities, its oil refining and distribution facilities and its military production sites had been included among the 12 target sets for the coalition’s attacks.

[Dragonman]

FEDERAL LAW NO. 35-FZ OF 6 MARCH 2006 ON COUNTERACTION AGAINST TERRORISM
Adopted by the State Duma on 26 February 2006
Endorsed by the Federation Council on 1 March 2006

Article 3. Basic Concepts
The following basic concepts are used in this Federal Law:
1) terrorism shall mean the ideology of violence and the practice of influencing the adoption of a decision by public authorities, local self-government bodies or international organizations connected with frightening the population and (or) other forms of unlawful violent actions;
2) terrorist activity shall mean the activity including the following:
a) arranging, planning, preparing, financing and implementing an act of terrorism;
b) instigation of an act of terrorism;
c) establishment of an unlawful armed unit, criminal association (criminal organization) or an organized group for implementation of an act of terrorism, as well as participation in such structure;
d) recruiting, arming, training and using terrorists;
e) informational or other assistance to planning, preparing or implementing an act of terrorism;
f) popularization of terrorist ideas, dissemination of materials or information urging terrorist activities, substantiating or justifying the necessity of the exercise of such activity;
3) terrorist act shall mean making an explosion, arson or other actions connected with frightening the population and posing the danger of loss of life, of causing considerable damage to property or the onset of an ecological catastrophe , as well as other especially grave consequences, for the purpose of unlawful influence upon adoption of a decision by public authorities, local self-government bodies or international organizations, as well as the threat of committing the said actions for the same purpose;
4) counteraction against terrorism shall mean the activity of public authorities and local self-government bodies aimed at the following:
a) prevention of terrorism, including the detection and subsequent removal of the reasons and conditions conducive to committing acts of terrorism (prevention of terrorism);
b) detection, prevention, suppression, disclosure and investigation of an act of terrorism (struggle against terrorism);
c) reduction to minimum and (or) liquidation of terrorist manifestations;
5) antiterrorist operation shall mean a complex set of special, operational-combat and army measures accompanied by the use of military equipment, armaments and special facilities which are aimed at suppressing an act of terrorism, neutralizing terrorists, ensuring security of natural persons, organizations and institutions, as well as at reducing to minimum the consequences of an act of terrorism.

https://rm.coe.int/ct-legislation-ru...ion/16806415f5

I believe this covers everything that the Russian Federation has done since last February, and probably since 2014 when it illegally annexed Ukraine, including the formation of the Wagner Group and their employment by the Russian Federation in Syria, etc., as well as in Ukraine, and the employment of the Chechen Kadyrovite paramilitary operation.

[Moses]

FEDERAL LAW NO. 35-FZ OF 6 MARCH 2006 ON COUNTERACTION AGAINST TERRORISM
Adopted by the State Duma on 26 February 2006
Endorsed by the Federation Council on 1 March 2006

Article 3. Basic Concepts
The following basic concepts are used in this Federal Law:
1) terrorism shall mean the ideology of violence and the practice of influencing the adoption of a decision by public authorities, local self-government bodies or international organizations connected with frightening the population and (or) other forms of unlawful violent actions;
2) terrorist activity shall mean the activity including the following:
a) arranging, planning, preparing, financing and implementing an act of terrorism;
b) instigation of an act of terrorism;
c) establishment of an unlawful armed unit, criminal association (criminal organization) or an organized group for implementation of an act of terrorism, as well as participation in such structure;
d) recruiting, arming, training and using terrorists;
e) informational or other assistance to planning, preparing or implementing an act of terrorism;
f) popularization of terrorist ideas, dissemination of materials or information urging terrorist activities, substantiating or justifying the necessity of the exercise of such activity;
3) terrorist act shall mean making an explosion, arson or other actions connected with frightening the population and posing the danger of loss of life, of causing considerable damage to property or the onset of an ecological catastrophe , as well as other especially grave consequences, for the purpose of unlawful influence upon adoption of a decision by public authorities, local self-government bodies or international organizations, as well as the threat of committing the said actions for the same purpose;
4) counteraction against terrorism shall mean the activity of public authorities and local self-government bodies aimed at the following:
a) prevention of terrorism, including the detection and subsequent removal of the reasons and conditions conducive to committing acts of terrorism (prevention of terrorism);
b) detection, prevention, suppression, disclosure and investigation of an act of terrorism (struggle against terrorism);
c) reduction to minimum and (or) liquidation of terrorist manifestations;
5) antiterrorist operation shall mean a complex set of special, operational-combat and army measures accompanied by the use of military equipment, armaments and special facilities which are aimed at suppressing an act of terrorism, neutralizing terrorists, ensuring security of natural persons, organizations and institutions, as well as at reducing to minimum the consequences of an act of terrorism.

https://rm.coe.int/ct-legislation-ru...ion/16806415f5

I believe this covers everything that the Russian Federation has done since last February, and probably since 2014 when it illegally annexed Ukraine, including the formation of the Wagner Group and their employment by the Russian Federation in Syria, etc., as well as in Ukraine, and the employment of the Chechen Kadyrovite paramilitary operation.

The main problem for you and your propaganda: actions of Russia aren't recognized as "act of terrorism", including US.

[Dragonman]

Thank you for your long response - which missed the point of my posting!. If the Ukrainian were responsible for the Kherson Bridge attack, then it was not a terrorist attack but a permissible and legal attack under the terms of the Geneva Convention,