At some point I find myself almost wishing for terrorism, like sneak a few Ukrainians in over the Suny Oblast area border and blow up commercial buildings at night...

Then I remember that the whole thing breaks if Ukrainians start being as bad as Russia. (Not that it would be as bad as what they have done, but few people would support that)

[–] RadButNotAChad@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would support it. Make the average citizen of Russia feel as unsafe as the Ukranians feel. I'm not saying target civilians, but make it known you can. Russia isn't playing by the rules. If Russia manages to crush Ukraine, will anyone sleep better at night going 'At least Ukraine played fair'.

[–] jwmgregory@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

you guys are fucking crazy. ukrainian government knows there’s a very tangible and real possibility of defeat, or at the least concessions to russia during negotiations. do you really think it is in their best interests to let the kremlin make claims about ukrainian acts of terror during that stage?? like it or not, the world isnt some fucking equitable, fair fairy tale. russia has significantly more bargaining power here. they can afford ukraine making such claims, that doesn’t matter. on the flip side, ukraine cannot.

[–] Firipu@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

Thanks for a sane take on this. War isn't tit for tat, war is incredibly unfair

[–] BurnTheRight@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The whole thing does not break if Ukraine crosses lines that Russia already crosses. Fuck that. Don't allow the conservative aggressors tonestavlish an unfair set of rules. Every rule Russia breaks that goes unenforced should be disregarded by all parties. Ruzzia insists on making rules, make them suffer by their own rules.

[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

SO if Russia starts lobbing around chemical and biological weapons, then Ukraine should do that too? Like not gonna work like that, for example biological weapons are one of those were you can't just go "tit-for-tat". Since every biological weapon used is new risk of launching a pandemic on the world and so on.

To certain level, yes if other side breakes the rules, we get to break them also. However there is a line. Line which you never cross. Under no circumstances should Ukraine be allowed to target medical facilities, even on Russia having done it multitude of times. Indiscriminate intentional bombardment of still habited cities with no allowing of civilians to evacuate should always be off the table. You just don't do that. All it leads is to needless human suffering.

It's one thing to aim for military or strategic target and miss and hit civilians. That is recognized as reality of war. Terror bombardment? Never to be allowed. Not to mention it doesn't work. Every example in history has shown all it does is make the receiving end angry, instead of demoralizing them. It sets a "So it's to the last breath then? That is the name of the game, fine that is the name of the game" and they fight to bitter end.

[–] broguy89@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except nuclear powers are not allowed to lose. That's why everyone wants to be a nuclear power and all the nuclear powers don't want any new nuclear powers.

[–] chowder@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nuclear powers aren't allowed to lose? Like the American Vietnam war or the first Russian Chechnya war?