Previous post
Frustrated with its inability to subdue Ukrainian resistance, Russia has turned to attacking cities — and with it — civilians.
Russian missiles slammed into Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city, taking out part of an administrative building in the heart of the city. Local officials said there were casualties within, which included at least 10 ten dead. On top of that, another missile hit a five-story apartment building, killing eight people.
Human Rights Watch has also documented a cluster munition strike outside a hospital in Vuhledar on February 24. That attack killed four civilians and injured another 10, six of whom were healthcare workers. The hospital and an ambulance also received damage.
And, in the capital city of Kyiv, a Russian missile also destroyed a Holocaust memorial. So much for Vladimir Putin’s campaign to “denazify” Ukraine.
The Russian campaign to “denazify” Ukraine just hit a Holocaust memorial https://t.co/ONsaewdRJ2
— max seddon (@maxseddon) March 1, 2022
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — still remaining in Kyiv — responded to the attacks:
“After this, Russia is a terrorist state. No one will forgive. No one will forget.”
Olga Martina, a child psychologist in Kharkiv, says she can’t believe what is happening in her beloved city:
“We thought we lived in paradise, and they’ve turned it into hell.”
Martina had been out shopping for food on Monday, when she heard an explosion. Taking shelter in an underground parking garage, she later found that “a rocket had hit a residential block a short distance away, a direct hit.”
Another resident called the attacks a “near constant cannonade.” He added that the Russians are “firing haphazardly at people queueing for water and food.”
While a doctor named Igor (he declined to give his last name) said that the goal is to create terror and panic:
“They want to create chaos, to demoralize us. This isn’t war, this is murder of civilians.”
He added:
“But this is exactly what Bashar al-Assad did to Syria and now Putin’s doing it to Ukraine.”
Kharkiv is now a city in crisis: ATMs are out of case, long lines form in front of supermarkets, and most of public transportation no longer functions. Electricity is out in the worst hit neighborhoods.
Yet the defiance continues. A group of residents gathered in front of the bombed-out government building, waving the blue and yellow Ukrainian flag. One of the group addressed Russians in a social media post:
“Look what you’ve fucking done! Look how many people have died! Stop, leave, before it’s too late!”
Russia seems to have a penchant for attacking civilian populations. Yes, I know, no country (except maybe famously neutral Switzerland) can claim that their hands are clean of such attacks during wartime. For example, British and American air forces bombed Dresden, Germany, over a three-day period during World War II. The action was intended to terrorize the German population, and it still remains controversial. And then there’s the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945.
You could argue that these actions happened during a declared state of war. They also seem to be outlier events for the Allies.
But Russia obliterated the capital city of Grozny, Chechnya, in 2020, in order to knock out the Chechen rebellion. After Russian forces were done with the city, it looked more like Stalingrad after World War II. As Jim Geraghty wrote in National Review:
“Vladimir Putin has already demonstrated that he’s willing to level a city and slaughter thousands of civilians to achieve his objectives.”
Decades before that, Russia carried out the largest ethnic cleansing of the 20th century: the expulsion of German civilians living in eastern Europe. Not only did Russia force up to 14 million civilians — mostly woman and children — to flee their homes, but the expulsion continued until 1950. While the United States was rebuilding Germany, Soviet troops were still raping, killing, and brutalizing German civilians.
Germans fleeing East Prussia, 1945.
Credit: Bundesarchiv Bild 175-S00-00326/wikimedia commons/CC BY-SA 3.0 DE
Josef Stalin was responsible for that brutality. Vladimir Putin is now carrying on his bloody tradition in Ukraine. Meantime, according to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, Russia will continue the offensive until its “goals are achieved.” The bloodshed — now among Ukrainian civilians — won’t end anytime soon.
Featured image: Christiaan Triebert/flickr/cropped/CC BY-NC 2.0.
[…] post Russia Goes War Crimes: Attacking Ukrainian Cities appeared first on Victory Girls […]
Hate_me says: I’m not denying that it’s an ugly situation. War is hell. Nor am I defending Vladimir Putin – but there is at least one very legitimate military target in Kharkiv: The industrial machine factory that builds T-84 tanks.
Urban warfare is an unsettled matter in military science. Head over to West Point’s site for the Modern War Institute and you’ll see our own top military academics arguing that sometimes it is necessary to “destroy the city in order to preserve it.”
Am I saying that I, were it my call, would have just randomly shelled the city? I certainly hope not (but it’s easy to call the plays on Monday morning). I definitely would have made it a priority to either co-opt or neutralize that facility.
*This is not an endorsement of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, though I’m sure I’ll be accused of such. Thankfully, my bank account is too empty to merit sanction.
GWB says: There’s a lot more than one. Every gathering of Ukrainians with rifles is a legitimate military target. Heck, even one is a legitimate target. And if you legitimately think that corner apartment building could shield an anti-tank emplacement that will shoot you as you round the corner? Then it’s a legitimate target, too.
And, yes, there have been one or two commenters who seem to take that tack – “if you don’t think we should nuke Russia because of its aggression against poor little defenseless milquetoast Ukraine, then you must be a Putin-lover!”
I’ve been called worse by hippies!
GWB says: Russia has turned to attacking cities — and with it — civilians.
Sorry, Kim, but that is NOT a war crime. If they were purposely bombing only apartment buildings or other non-dual-use buildings you might have an argument. If they intended to destroy the Holocaust monument and it had no military, governmental, or propaganda/psyop value, then you would have an argument. The fact civilians are being killed does NOT make any of it a war crime. That simply makes it a WAR.
This isn’t war, this is murder of civilians.
No, Igor, you’re wrong. Unless you can prove they are purposely targeting civilians, it isn’t murder, it’s just WAR.
But this is exactly what Bashar al-Assad did to Syria and now Putin’s doing it to Ukraine.
Ummm, that doesn’t even make any sense.
Kharkiv is now a city in crisis
Yes, that’s what happens in a war, especially in a siege.
“Look what you’ve fucking done! Look how many people have died! Stop, leave, before it’s too late!”
Oh yeah, that’s good psyop! /smh/ Please leave propaganda and psyops to the professionals, people.
(And yes, I’m glad they’re defiant. They should be; that’s how the citizens of a country should act!)
it still remains controversial
Only among those who adopted the progressive idea that war should be clean and surgical and nobody should really get hurt if we can help it. It’s never been controversial among people who know what war really is and how it should be fought. (FYI, this sort of silliness didn’t come into being except in western Europe, after the Franco-Prussian war, when the powers that be decided they’d suffered too much from war, but didn’t really want to stop waging it.) Also, see Drone Attacks on Terrorists that happen to kill the civilians they hang with.
The action was intended to terrorize the German population
The better way to phrase that is that it was intended to demoralize the population, so they would surrender and end the war.
You could argue that these actions happened during a declared state of war.
ROFL. Are we still clinging to that progressive fiction?
After Russian forces were done with the city, it looked more like Stalingrad after World War II.
Do you have any idea what the Chechens were doing to their enemies? Yeah, it mostly stopped after Grozny. I don’t like the Russians, but at least they knew how to win a war.
Josef Stalin was responsible for that brutality.
Yes, he was. Though the Soviet soldiers weren’t exactly reluctant about it, either. Which brings us back full circle to the progressive silliness about human nature and how they can change it and we can all be peaceful little widgets in their utopian machine and we’ll all sing kumbaya after we take our soma. The idea of “clean” war is a fantasy of progressivism, believed desperately by all those in Europe after what WW2 had done to their countries and their neighborhoods. But certainly driven on from even before WW1*. It took longer to catch on in the US, but it did finally (after a lot of Soviet money was spent on it) take root and grow into a nasty thorn tree full of crows waiting to feed on our bones.
Honestly, though, do you believe war should only be waged by snipers and tank rounds with pinpoint precision and waged from 30,000 feet with GPS-guided missiles? Because you’re living in a dream world. This is actually a pretty soft war, so far, historically speaking.
GWB says: Forgot my footnote…
(* Progressivism was already running rampant among the elite prior to WW1. It’s partly why there were all the entangling alliances that cascaded into a “World” War. It’s the driving force behind the League of Nations and things like the battleship limitation treaties. The thought that the same science and “liberal” thought that saved us from various diseases and made us able to fly and travel across oceans in mere days would save us from international war among the “civilized” countries. It was the point of the Geneva Convention. Which, btw, is a really dumb document if you understand the actual nature of warfare, and would have made a significant portion of our army in the War of Independence outlaws and terrorists.)
Kim Hirsch says: Sorry, Kim, but that is NOT a war crime. If they were purposely bombing only apartment buildings or other non-dual-use buildings you might have an argument.
Unless you can prove that those strikes on hospitals, apartments, and neighborhoods are merely “unhappy little accidents” (to paraphrase Bob Ross), I’m sticking to my label. People with much greater knowledge than either you or I are examining whether or not they fall under the definition of war crimes.
This isn’t war, this is murder of civilians.
No, Igor, you’re wrong. Unless you can prove they are purposely targeting civilians, it isn’t murder, it’s just WAR.Sorry, Doctor, GWB’s facts don’t care about what you’re seeing in your own city.
“Look what you’ve fucking done! Look how many people have died! Stop, leave, before it’s too late!”
Oh yeah, that’s good psyop! /smh/ Please leave propaganda and psyops to the professionals, people.Why should they? Using social media has been pretty damned effective in rallying nations to Ukraine.
it still remains controversial
Only among those who adopted the progressive idea that war should be clean and surgical and nobody should really get hurt if we can help it. It’s never been controversial among people who know what war really is and how it should be fought.1) Definition of controversial: “of, relating to or arousing controversy; i.e., a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. Is the Bombing of Dresden still debated as to its ethics? Yes? Then by definition it is still controversial.
2) Many years ago I was attending a Bible study meeting in which, IIRC, war was being discussed. I brought up the topic of Dresden, saying that I wondered if it was moral to bomb the city. To my surprise, an older man perked up and stated that yes, it was probably wrong — both from a military and from a moral viewpoint. This man was a retired US Air Force general. He passed away several years ago, very respected among the congregation. I’m pretty sure he he knew how war should be fought.The action was intended to terrorize the German population
The better way to phrase that is that it was intended to demoralize the population, so they would surrender and end the war.Perhaps I should send you drafts of my posts so that you might edit them according to your standards.
You could argue that these actions happened during a declared state of war.
ROFL. Are we still clinging to that progressive fiction?Yes, World War II was a declared war. Why is that a joke to you?
After Russian forces were done with the city, it looked more like Stalingrad after World War II.
Do you have any idea what the Chechens were doing to their enemies?Yes.
Yeah, it mostly stopped after Grozny. I don’t like the Russians, but at least they knew how to win a war.
Which cliché works best here? “By any means necessary”? Or that comment from the despicable Soviet apologist, Walter Duranty: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”
Josef Stalin was responsible for that brutality.
Yes, he was. Though the Soviet soldiers weren’t exactly reluctant about it, either… The idea of “clean” war is a fantasy of progressivism. . .You apparently failed to notice my point that Soviet atrocities against German citizens largely occurred postwar, lasting five years after Germany had surrendered. It has nothing to do with conducting war.
Honestly, though, do you believe war should only be waged by snipers and tank rounds with pinpoint precision and waged from 30,000 feet with GPS-guided missiles?
Where did you get that idea? Please show me where I wrote anything like that — I’ll wait.
I’m the daughter of a World War II vet who served on a B-17 crew flying missions over southern Europe and Germany. I grew up knowing that he was one of thousands upon thousands of men flying thousands of planes in thick formations, bombing the crap out of their targets. Without GPS, but using the Norden bombsight to pinpoint their targets. It may have been state-of-the-art at the time, but wasn’t always accurate, either.
I’m also aware that the AF still maintains the old B-52, as well as the A-10 Warthog. Hardly planes that wage war from 30,000 feet.Because you’re living in a dream world.
So I’m just a silly woman who never served and therefore don’t know anything, right? Maybe I should just stick with meeting the girls for Chardonnay brunch on Sunday afternoon.
Get off your pedagogical high horse. And thanks for reading.
GWB says: Unless you can prove that those strikes on hospitals, apartments, and neighborhoods are merely “unhappy little accidents” (to paraphrase Bob Ross), I’m sticking to my label.
That’s fine, but that label is wrong. Unless you want to go the “everyone I disagree with is guilty until you prove them innocent.”
Sorry, Doctor, GWB’s facts don’t care about what you’re seeing in your own city.
So you just trust the emotional statement of some rando over an actual look at what constitutes a war crime in legal and historical contexts? I expect better of you, Kim.
Why should they? Using social media has been pretty damned effective in rallying nations to Ukraine.
Because, unlike a lot of other stuff we’ve seen on Twitter, the bit about “look how many people have died” is sort of like a football team taunting its opponent with “Oh no, look how many interceptions you’ve made against our quarterback! You’d better quit while you’re ahead!” The attackers want people to die. It’s part of their tactics. Or they wouldn’t be using lethal weapons.
This man was a retired US Air Force general.
Sorry, but I’ve known LOTS of AF generals (and Army and Navy and at least one Marine Corps one) who didn’t understand the concepts and principles of war, and had been steeped in stupid crap about winning wars with pinpoint strikes. Hell, Kim, those people RUN the USAF war colleges! Been there, done that! AF generals are probably – in bulk – the least competent war fighters we have, and that goes back to the 80s, at least.
Now, you might think “What does this guy know about warfare over those generals?” Well, lots of people would say I don’t. But I’ve studied military campaigns from ancient to modern and derived the same sorts of principles that people like Sun Tzu and Clausewitz have. And these people have tended to poo-poo those principles or have spent time and effort renaming them and then slapping their name on the study as if they deduced these things themselves and they’re “new” principles.
I’m pretty sure he he knew how war should be fought.
I don’t, based solely on what information you’ve provided.
Perhaps I should send you drafts of my posts so that you might edit them according to your standards.
Pfft. I’m arguing with you. Because I think you’re wrong. The wording is a reflection of the information you intended to convey.
World War II was a declared war.
Tell me, which wars since WW2 have been declared? With the possible exception of a couple of the attacks on Israel, I would challenge you to find me one. Because that declaration has become nothing more than a fig leaf in modern times and the lack thereof a bush to hide behind. It’s a political statement with no meaning to the actual conduct of war. It wasn’t it being a “police action” (and not a declared war) that kept us from bombing north of the Yalu River in Korea, it was the geopolitical reality that China might go all in and have Russian support.
“By any means necessary”?
In war that is pretty darn close to true. It’s WAR, not badminton. It’s about making your enemy so suffer that they will accede to your demands – and that’s true of offense and defense. You might be able to pull off a “proportional” strike to do that, but you might not. And using Duranty is a silly attempt at an emotional strike. We’re not talking about making omelets here, we’re talking about war.
largely occurred postwar
Past the end of declared hostilities, yes. The Soviets were still fighting the war, in their minds, cleaning up guerillas (which there, by the way) and rooting out traitors. I don’t necessarily agree with their mindset on that, but if you fail to take it into account, then you’re never going to grasp the concept of war.
Hardly planes that wage war from 30,000 feet.
Uhhh, actually, the B-52 does exactly that. “30,000 feet”, btw, is rhetorical. And most of us warmongers know that. But air wars are typically waged from a height outside of the range of small arms (technically above 15,000 AGL, though some Russian SAM systems go much higher), and US wars have been fought with precision weapons for the most part in the last 30 years. And yes, I know LOTS of AF people who think you can win a war from 15,000+ feet and call it a day.
(Also, A-10s can only operate in a permissive environment because they are low-altitude. That permissive environment is created by the guys dropping bombs from 30,000 MSL. Also, they have been constrained by modern weaponry to usually making their attacks from… 15,000 feet.)
So I’m just a silly woman who never served and therefore don’t know anything, right?
Oh, come off it! I never said anything of the sort, and you know damn good and well better than that! I happen to think you’ve drunk the kool-aid about how nice and neat wars can be – and it’s the same kool-aid so many have drank, from US generals to privates and airmen, from politicians to Foggy Bottom bowties to your average Joe on the street, left and right. It’s a progressive lie, trying to make international relations into a little science where we don’t really hurt each other but we play at making war (killing only a few people, of the right class, of course) and move pieces around on a board and then we all go for cocktails after in the UN lounge.
I’m not on a high horse, I’m trying to insert reality into what has become a pedagogical position that war should be neat and clean and if civilians die then it’s horrible and awful and we should maybe exclude that leader from our cocktail hours for a week. I think “limited war” has done more to increase death and destruction than any old-fashioned wars ever have.
And this kind of malarkey is why I have advocated for decades (including when I flew for SAC, madam) that war should never be unleashed until the politicians that do so are ready for real war – unconstrained, kick over everything and make sure the people on the other side are weeping in the dirt and begging to do what your side desired. If you can’t justify that, then I don’t think you should be going to “war”.
Mark A Green says: So the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes for which Truman should have been hung? How about the firebombing of Tokyo that killed over 100,000 people and burned down most of the city?
The allies also firebombed Dresden killing tens of thousands of civilians. Virtually every major city in Germany was completely leveled killing countless civilians.
By your definition all of the top allied military and civilian leadership in WWII are war criminals who should have been hung for their crimes against the Nazi’s and Imperial Japanese.
Kim Hirsch says: Did I say anything about hanging? No? Then don’t put words in my mouth.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end the war — the actions saved more lives overall, both Allied and Japanese. Dresden can be argued. That’s my understanding of history.
My father flew bombing missions over Europe in WWII. Did his crew accidentally hit civilians? I have no idea.
Are you a legal expert in war crimes? Neither am I. And your hypothetical is completely over the top, and has no relation to Putin’s attacks on Ukraine.
Chris says: Just like Merca…
[…] via activist channels, she made it clear she knew what she was doing. She speaks eloquently against Russia’s war on Ukraine, puts full blame on Putin, her shame for knowingly putting out actual fake Russian news, and calls […]
11 Comments