When a country invades a neighbor using phosphorus bombs, they are giving open permission for phosphorus bombs to be used in their country as well. There should be no complaints from Vlad Puta if phosphorus bombs started landing in Moscow.
I know everyone wants Ukraine to take the “moral high ground”, but when only one country is permitted to engage in heinous acts like this, it gives an extreme and unfair advantage to the offending country. If they win because of their advantages, it is worth it to them. The only way it becomes NOT worth it to them is when those horrific measures are recieved in return. Otherwise, why return fire in the event of a nuclear strike? The credible threat of suffering the same fate is how you stop the threat. Phosphorus bombs should be used on targets within Russia if we want any chance of them reconsidering the use of such weapons.
Attacks that kill Russian civilians are very likely a real possibility as this war drags on, and they’re likely to get a bit of diplomatic wiggle room when that occurs. Not outright support, but probably not a significant amount of actual political blowback, aside from public statements.
However, burning civilians alive with white phosphorus, would almost certainly be a terrible move for Ukraine. If the goal is to build pressure within the Russian population on Putin to end the war, I think videos of women and children being burned alive would have the opposite effect and only build/retrench Russian domestic support for a long war. As well the risk of real diplomatic blowback from their external partners.
Also, and you know, it’s a horrific and barbaric act.
I agree with you about the risk that the Russian population is less likely to put pressure on Puta to stop the war. But, currently, they are not placing any real pressure on Puta at all.
A significant portion of the population is, unfortunately, conservative and in support of the war. The intelligent Russians, however, are already opposed and will not be easily fooled into supporting the war. I don’t think these lines will move much, even if the war starts hitting them at home. The conservatives who are not vocally supportive were already not going to oppose the war, no matter how long it lasts.
I think the two possible outcomes of bombing them in their homes is either continued (but louder) support for the war or louder voices opposing it. I think most Russians already have strong opinions on the matter that will not be reversed by local bombings (even horrific ones).
The majority of the Russian population is actually depoliticized. The goal of attacks on Russian soil is done specifically to re-politicize them and do so in a way that advances the goal of ending the war.
I would recommend you watch some of Vlad Vexler’s videos on the subject. He’s a Soviet born political philosopher who lives in the UK. He does a much better job explaining this subject, including why Ukraine can and will expand the war further into Russia as it drags on, and what the goal of that should be, amongst many other subjects.
This is Russia’s war. These acts are playing by the rules Russia insists upon.
Would you have Ukraine just take an endless onslaught of “barbaric acts” from Russia without any regard for the common rules of war? Because that is what will happen if Russia’s heinous violence is not brought right back to them.
Let Russians experience war-torn homes and villages for themselves. Let them experience the hell that Russia has visited upon Ukraine every day for the last 2 years so they can decide if they still support Pinche Puta and his genocide of Ukrainians.
Unless you want Ukraine’s strategy to be forced into an insurgency fighting a full occupation, they need Western weapons and munitions to keep the up the current fight.
You’re advocating that they literally start intentionally burning civilians alive, which would be one the quickest and more surefire way to end that support, which is already becoming more fragile as the war drags on.
Ukraine is an extensional fight for survival and I DON’T believe in overly moralizing the deaths of Russian civilians, but how they are actually killed matters. If they are nearby an assassins bomb, or an exploding military factory, is entirely different then launching banned weapons like White Phosphorus over their town for the express purpose of burning them alive.
If you’re Ukrainian, I understand the impulse. However I stand by my assessment of how that type of attack will ultimately blowback and critically impact your ability to win this war on your own terms, but I get it the raw hatred.
If you’re a Western observer, I’m genuinely concerned about you, and others like you. This level of dehumanizing civilians and wanting to see them burned alive is poisonous, both to your own mental health, but also to public discourse, and ultimately, to Ukraine’s ability to defeat Russia regain full control of it’s country, and secure their right to self determination.
I disagree. A failure to move the lines across the border into Russia would lead to a loss (and a much greater loss of life overall), as Putin will never, ever stop on his own. Only disease, Russians or Ukranians will be able to end him and his war. And so far, disease and Russians are not stopping him.
You can say the same thing about HAMAS and Israelis? Like would you support if Israeli started now raping women, not bombing after saying to evacuate Gaza, but literally killing them with guns on the point, children, defendless people, innocent ones who had done nothing, torture them. Would you still support Israelis if they were starting to do that?
Morality is not a reverse competition, like lol. It’s not about “Oh, you used a Nuclear bomb? I use a nuclear bomb, we all use a nuclear bomb”. Morality is about stopping this whole sht. Israelis are trying to neutralize HAMAS and their supporters, and obviously HAMAS told their supporters to stay at homes at Gaza and Gaza is the one that voted or supported HAMAS for more than a decade. So, their supporters are now at Gaza whether they want or not Im sorry but they’ll die, because they simply seem to support Raping women, killing innocent children, attacking from nowhere a country, undressing a woman and placing her on a tree and cheering. Like these are attrocities who none should commit. It’s NOT a fucking competition. And unfortunately, as war is hell and always chaotic, unfortunately innocent people who never supported such things are the minority and some may die too. Unfortunately. But the majority of Gaza is the one that supported the HAMAS being their “government”. Nobody seemed to complain, like we would do at Europe for Macron, Trump, or any president that did something bad.
If you support such atrocities, Im sorry but I dont think you belong to a peaceful humanity. You should either be placed in jail, or in a war … die so we don’t have people that support such atrocities anymore.
Same with Ukraine and Russian war. Just because Phorphorus was used on the one side, does not mean that you’ve got the moral high ground of using phosphorus too. It is not … a competition. End of story.
It’s about neutralizing the target that used Phorphorus in the first place, not about using it against them. It’s about neutralizing the target that raped your families, your women, killed your children, supports an organization that does commit such attrocities. Not about doing the same to them.
Peace by neutralizing a target is the end goal, not catastrophy of both countries and competing at who will commit more war crimes.
When a country invades a neighbor using phosphorus bombs, they are giving open permission for phosphorus bombs to be used in their country as well. There should be no complaints from Vlad Puta if phosphorus bombs started landing in Moscow.
I know everyone wants Ukraine to take the “moral high ground”, but when only one country is permitted to engage in heinous acts like this, it gives an extreme and unfair advantage to the offending country. If they win because of their advantages, it is worth it to them. The only way it becomes NOT worth it to them is when those horrific measures are recieved in return. Otherwise, why return fire in the event of a nuclear strike? The credible threat of suffering the same fate is how you stop the threat. Phosphorus bombs should be used on targets within Russia if we want any chance of them reconsidering the use of such weapons.
Attacks that kill Russian civilians are very likely a real possibility as this war drags on, and they’re likely to get a bit of diplomatic wiggle room when that occurs. Not outright support, but probably not a significant amount of actual political blowback, aside from public statements.
However, burning civilians alive with white phosphorus, would almost certainly be a terrible move for Ukraine. If the goal is to build pressure within the Russian population on Putin to end the war, I think videos of women and children being burned alive would have the opposite effect and only build/retrench Russian domestic support for a long war. As well the risk of real diplomatic blowback from their external partners.
Also, and you know, it’s a horrific and barbaric act.
I agree with you about the risk that the Russian population is less likely to put pressure on Puta to stop the war. But, currently, they are not placing any real pressure on Puta at all.
A significant portion of the population is, unfortunately, conservative and in support of the war. The intelligent Russians, however, are already opposed and will not be easily fooled into supporting the war. I don’t think these lines will move much, even if the war starts hitting them at home. The conservatives who are not vocally supportive were already not going to oppose the war, no matter how long it lasts.
I think the two possible outcomes of bombing them in their homes is either continued (but louder) support for the war or louder voices opposing it. I think most Russians already have strong opinions on the matter that will not be reversed by local bombings (even horrific ones).
The majority of the Russian population is actually depoliticized. The goal of attacks on Russian soil is done specifically to re-politicize them and do so in a way that advances the goal of ending the war.
I would recommend you watch some of Vlad Vexler’s videos on the subject. He’s a Soviet born political philosopher who lives in the UK. He does a much better job explaining this subject, including why Ukraine can and will expand the war further into Russia as it drags on, and what the goal of that should be, amongst many other subjects.
https://youtube.com/@VladVexler
Thank you for the suggestion. I will look into him.
So you (would) support those barbaric acts?
I mean, just so I can put you in the right bucket.
This is Russia’s war. These acts are playing by the rules Russia insists upon.
Would you have Ukraine just take an endless onslaught of “barbaric acts” from Russia without any regard for the common rules of war? Because that is what will happen if Russia’s heinous violence is not brought right back to them.
Let Russians experience war-torn homes and villages for themselves. Let them experience the hell that Russia has visited upon Ukraine every day for the last 2 years so they can decide if they still support Pinche Puta and his genocide of Ukrainians.
Unless you want Ukraine’s strategy to be forced into an insurgency fighting a full occupation, they need Western weapons and munitions to keep the up the current fight.
You’re advocating that they literally start intentionally burning civilians alive, which would be one the quickest and more surefire way to end that support, which is already becoming more fragile as the war drags on.
Ukraine is an extensional fight for survival and I DON’T believe in overly moralizing the deaths of Russian civilians, but how they are actually killed matters. If they are nearby an assassins bomb, or an exploding military factory, is entirely different then launching banned weapons like White Phosphorus over their town for the express purpose of burning them alive.
If you’re Ukrainian, I understand the impulse. However I stand by my assessment of how that type of attack will ultimately blowback and critically impact your ability to win this war on your own terms, but I get it the raw hatred.
If you’re a Western observer, I’m genuinely concerned about you, and others like you. This level of dehumanizing civilians and wanting to see them burned alive is poisonous, both to your own mental health, but also to public discourse, and ultimately, to Ukraine’s ability to defeat Russia regain full control of it’s country, and secure their right to self determination.
Yeah and Ukraine would instantly lose, a lot of, support from the EU and probably the USA.
There is a reason why some things are bad, enough people here (in the EU but obviously elsewhere too) know that.
I disagree. A failure to move the lines across the border into Russia would lead to a loss (and a much greater loss of life overall), as Putin will never, ever stop on his own. Only disease, Russians or Ukranians will be able to end him and his war. And so far, disease and Russians are not stopping him.
Well, Israel does it against civilian population and nobody is blinking an eye, US is even giving them now weapons.
I dont think this is a wise way to think.
You can say the same thing about HAMAS and Israelis? Like would you support if Israeli started now raping women, not bombing after saying to evacuate Gaza, but literally killing them with guns on the point, children, defendless people, innocent ones who had done nothing, torture them. Would you still support Israelis if they were starting to do that?
Morality is not a reverse competition, like lol. It’s not about “Oh, you used a Nuclear bomb? I use a nuclear bomb, we all use a nuclear bomb”. Morality is about stopping this whole sht. Israelis are trying to neutralize HAMAS and their supporters, and obviously HAMAS told their supporters to stay at homes at Gaza and Gaza is the one that voted or supported HAMAS for more than a decade. So, their supporters are now at Gaza whether they want or not Im sorry but they’ll die, because they simply seem to support Raping women, killing innocent children, attacking from nowhere a country, undressing a woman and placing her on a tree and cheering. Like these are attrocities who none should commit. It’s NOT a fucking competition. And unfortunately, as war is hell and always chaotic, unfortunately innocent people who never supported such things are the minority and some may die too. Unfortunately. But the majority of Gaza is the one that supported the HAMAS being their “government”. Nobody seemed to complain, like we would do at Europe for Macron, Trump, or any president that did something bad.
If you support such atrocities, Im sorry but I dont think you belong to a peaceful humanity. You should either be placed in jail, or in a war … die so we don’t have people that support such atrocities anymore.
Same with Ukraine and Russian war. Just because Phorphorus was used on the one side, does not mean that you’ve got the moral high ground of using phosphorus too. It is not … a competition. End of story.
It’s about neutralizing the target that used Phorphorus in the first place, not about using it against them. It’s about neutralizing the target that raped your families, your women, killed your children, supports an organization that does commit such attrocities. Not about doing the same to them.
Peace by neutralizing a target is the end goal, not catastrophy of both countries and competing at who will commit more war crimes.
AFAIK phosphorus bombs are allowed as long as only soldiers are targeted. Sadly so.