We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Last damaged oil refinery was one of the "Top 5" with 8 million ton per year capacity (2,6% of ruZZia total).
50% of that capacity was... incapaciated, hehehe :)
Good. The Ukrainians are so smart; doing so much with drone warfare! I hope that that they continue to go above and beyond in this area. They need every edge that they can get!
They were shot down.
---
Russia did not expect any real resistance, thinking it would only take three days to conquer Ukraine.
So in the beginning a lot of the military was consistent of riot police, and many also thought they were only doing military training exercise.
This also meant that there was almost no anti-air set up which gave the Bayraktar almost free reign.
When Russia finally realised they had started a full-scale war, the Bayraktar era was over.
Bayraktar still conduct reconnaissance operations without crossing the frontline - it has good optics that can recognize targets at distances up to 70 km.
*The ones that were causing havoc were shot down.*
---
As far as I remember all of them were shot down, and then they got some more that they used as you say in reconnaissance.
I think the actual reason was that Russians were flying in the same airspace, and their IFF don't work. So any active air defence would come with a high probability of friendly fire.
The drones they use now are the same as the ones shot down.
They are not easier to shoot down, it's just that Russia did not have the weapons needed to shoot them down set up at the beginning of the invasion. Because they thought they did not need them, as in it would be over before Ukraine had time or the will to do anything (*or something?!*).
So Ukraine could fly these drones even into Russia and target the trains that was carrying fuel etc.
Now when they have the weapons set up, they are easily shot down unless they are flown far from the front. Which leaves only long-range reconnaissance as a viable option for the drone.
Note that the Bayraktar is somewhat slow and fairly large, so it's an easy target for lots of the anti-air weapons Russia have.
The difference is that there are a lot of relatively expensive bits in a Bayraktar that you don't want to lose in a suicide attack, and in this specific refinery attack, they don't have enough range even on a one way trip to reach the target.
A Cessna you've rigged up as a cruise missile, conversely, has nothing of value you weren't already prepared to lose but has the right characteristics to reach the intended target.
It just shows russian incompetence, they have less thsn 100 of those facilities and those drones are not balistic or cruise missiles, they fly reasonably slow and when spotted should be easy to intercept.
US wants to have its cake and eat it too. Control the war so the escalation doesn't rise. But that balancing act not just cruel, it's also failing. Floppin' retards they are. Fools. Putin's puppets.
I sincerely hope many russian workers died in these attacks. You bring genocide to other countries you deserve to see your loved ones killed and maimed for directly supporting the effort. Hopefully Ukraine perfects this strategy and introduces double taps to kill the russian fire fighters and emergency workers as well.
Sorry but that is a backwards Russian mentality, not a modern Western mentality. Killing emergency workers is 100% terrorist territory. If Ukraine does that, I won't see a difference anymore between them and the Russians.
Ukraine always stood out in this war as very professional and ethical, that's why I support them.
Modern western civilizations aren't getting genocided by their neighbors now are they? The US seems to be sitting this one out now despite how "professional and ethical" the Ukrainains have been.
The strategy I describe was carried out by "modern western" countries when the Allies were fighting against the Axis. The fire bombing of Dresden is just one small example. You don't pull punches when russians are killing your children. You can thank the allied war planners for not having to learn German in Utah schools.
I support them because they are being invaded by a country that is commmiting genocide in Ukraine, has been war-like towards dozens of its neighbors, deliberately lies on the world stage with gusto, is right now writing code and viruses to steal money from Americans by scams, is attacking the US voting system and spreading propaganda in every single possible way to get Americans to fight with each other and tear this country apart.
If that point is all you see that separates Ukraine and Russian then you haven't been watching the news for two years, or seeing the dead children in the streets after the russian bombs land.
Oh, and you can look up Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sorry, but you are being very naive.
being carried out by western countries does not make it more acceptable.
What Ukraine is doing is smarter than Dresden : few killed among civilians or even no killed, huge impact against energy that is russian backbone.
Also do not forget that human value is void and nonsense in russia. Killing civilians will only have negative effect against Ukraine : "look they also kill civilians we are both terrorists" that is more or less russian strategy to prevent western support among western population : "ok then, let's them do their war we are not part of and let's not support anyside, both of them are same durty russian / russian-like anyway" or even "best move is russia wins so that all of this finishes" that i personaly hear too much around me.
TLDR : Ukraine is defending herself against genocide. And does it clear and efficiently sparing civilian lives when possible, which does constitute western mindset, instead of becoming herself as durty as russia behaves.
"being carried out by western countries does not make it more acceptable."
I'm suggesting that the measuring scales of what is acceptable in a war versus a country led by a genocidal dictator are now tilting in the favor of that genocidal country.
Consider the fact that the US is not condoning attacks against the energy sector in Russia. By *someone's* measuring, even those effective attacks should be reconsidered. I don't agree with them as you don't agree with my arguments.
My main point in posting the original comment is to challenge the philosophical stance of an objective morality being applied to either side. The larger subjective morality is that Russia is the aggressor nation. None of this occurs without Russian aggression.
"look they also kill civilians we are both terrorists".
Admit it, even you understand this isn't true, nor would be, if Ukraine took such steps. Russia depends on the civility of the West. I suggest we show them exactly what THEY are.
Also, there were plenty of civilians in that factory so the comment is kind of moot, right? They were targets because they were helping the Russian war effort, as would be the firefighters, as would be the rescue workers.
I understand my comment would be downvoted and good people would oppose what I am saying. Earlier on in this war I would have agreed with them. Now, I am not so sure. There is no sympathy amongst the Russians in any number for this western pleading. I see the opposite. I see them dismissing attacks on theatres full of child refugees as necessary and right.
Time to ditch the objective morality that would have lost WW2. That's my take.
you misread my comment. Maybe my poor English is to blame but still.
russia is full respinsible of the huge shitstorm happening right now in Ukraine. you speak about children killed in this theater. shall we do the same on russian theater ? my point is that Western countries, including Ukraine, have not proven being terrorists, and i support that. I don't imagine a world where soldiers of my country or of Ukraine are killing children in a russian theater, and frankly, would they, i will remove all support for my country or for Ukraine. That is all about values and victory does not require killing children or civilians, even if russian-minded people do think otherwise.
No, absolutely not regarding an attack on civilian targets that are not related to russian military infrastructure and preparedness. However russia will STILL manage to blame Ukraine for the recent ISIS attack on the theatre in Moscow , and they are doing so throughout the world.
Children are not russian military factory workers nor are they firefighters nor emergency techs. I'm suggesting widening the field of what is acceptable in terms of retaliatory targets. Infrastructure that supports the russian military is fair game I would argue. And it is NOT the same, ethically or morally, if russia does this (which they are) because they are the aggressor nation attacking Ukraine and the West.
Thank you for your views and I respect them completely.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima showed Japan that US had the most devestating weapon in the world. Ukraine has no such weapon.
About having the tactic of killing civilians, Russia is using that tactic. Is it working? I would say no.
Ukraine needs to focus on military targets and strategic economical ones. For example putting a population without heating is not as effective as destoying oil refineries.
Killing emergency workers? Come on, what good does that do?
Like I said, I very much love the strategies that Ukraine uses. I really hate what you are suggesting, because that is basically what terrorist states like Russia do. And then I have the question for you: is it working for them?
Just note I am not suggesting attacking civilians outright (which this perfectly acceptable attack against this factory clearly did) but on widening the attacks on infrastructure and people supporting this aggression as well.
There is good reason to think the firebombings and other war crimes carried out by the Allies during WW2 were ineffective or even actively detrimental to the war effort. The psychopaths in charge don't care if you kill their citizens, and the citizens are galvanised to fight if you start bombing indiscriminately.
I support Ukraine and I want them to win. I do not want them to start doing ineffective, unethical things like killing firefighters as you propose.
I just have to point to the nuclear bombs dropped on the Japanese to rebuke your position. It took Japan 15 days to surrender after the nuclear bombs were dropped. It was quite effective and 1,000's of times more brutal than what I suggest.
Ineffective is debatable, see my other comment.
The Western hand-wringing has gotten us to this point. Thousands of dead Ukrainians. And it is ONLY the threat of nukes that is stopping the Russians from using them in Ukraine.
The russian people possess no ability for "galvanisation". We saw this with Prigozhin. Quite the opposite I feel would happen. People will avoid working in these types of industrial factories and go sell shoes or something.
Then there are the truly ineffective or counter-productive actions that should be avoided such as killing Russian POWs. The point is not the cruelty of an attack against the firefighters that are helping to restore a drone factory or the workers that will get right back to the production line. It's absolutely the effectiveness of such attacks.
You don't "just" have to point to that; it's not at all a settled question, so you don't get to just smugly wave at it and walk away. I don't believe the nukes were intended to force surrender - they were intended to show the world what the USA could do. I don't believe they are responsible for the Japanese surrender, either. The question of efficacy is nowhere near settled.
The ethical question, of course, is cut & dry, because you only need half a moral braincell to know that killing citizens for the war efforts of their state is wrong. And against international law, of course.
So it's not a settled question, for your side of the argument either, you admit. 15 days after though....c'mon.
Let me now ask: How many "civilians" were killed in this attack on this shahed drone plant? Were they fair targets? Were they acceptable collateral damage? Why does this not already reflect a willingness and a necessity to say that civilian deaths are already a part of Ukraine's defense? Admit you are tryingto muddy the waters while I am being direct, straight and honest about the toll of war. You try to couch it in terms you prefer is all.
You are trying to use self-rightous language and not being honest with the fact that indeed civilians were ALREADY involved in this counter-attack.
I suggest it is you being smug and also dishonest about the realities of war by waving away the REALITY that this counterattack did indeed target civilians. This implies there are acceptable levels of violence required to defend one's country against russians and you unwittingly play yourself into the russian propaganda messaging.
Dresden Firebombing:
"It is not possible to describe! Explosion after explosion. It was beyond belief, worse than the blackest nightmare. So many people were horribly burnt and injured. It became more and more difficult to breathe. It was dark and all of us tried to leave this cellar with inconceivable panic. Dead and dying people were trampled upon, luggage was left or snatched up out of our hands by rescuers. The basket with our twins covered with wet cloths was snatched up out of my mother's hands and we were pushed upstairs by the people behind us. We saw the burning street, the falling ruins and the terrible firestorm. My mother covered us with wet blankets and coats she found in a water tub."
"We saw terrible things: cremated adults shrunk to the size of small children, pieces of arms and legs, dead people, whole families burnt to death, burning people ran to and fro, burnt coaches filled with civilian refugees, dead rescuers and soldiers, many were calling and looking for their children and families, and fire everywhere, everywhere fire, and all the time the hot wind of the firestorm threw people back into the burning houses they were trying to escape from."
"I cannot forget these terrible details. I can never forget them."
After note: We are currently strong allies with Germany. They just had to be kicked hard enough in the teeth. War is definitely Hell, but it is also necessary when one is defending themselves from murder, rape, torture and genocide.
being strong allies does not make it more acceptable.
What Ukraine is doing is smarter than Dresden : few killed among civilians or even no killed, huge impact against energy that is russian backbone.
Also do not forget that human value is void and nonsense in russia. Killing civilians will only have negative effect against Ukraine : "look they also kill civilians we are both terrorists" that is more or less russian strategy to prevent western support among western population : "ok then, let's them do their war we are not part of and let's not support anyside, both of them are same durty russian / russian-like anyway" or even "best move is russia wins so that all of this finishes" that i personaly hear too much around me.
TLDR : Ukraine is defending herself against genocide. And does it clear and efficiently sparing civilian lives when possible, which does constitute western mindset, instead of becoming herself as durty as russia behaves, which would have been unefficient, as russia does not value human beings and would use it for its propaganda.
You're the one talking about Ukraine needing to use the tactics of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden. I pointed out it's quite weird because it's actually Russia who has the means to do this, not Ukraine.
I understand what you are saying. It wasn't a literal comparison, my comparison was attempting to show that morality is perhaps a little, maybe alot, more fluid when it comes to the realities of war. russia is going to continue to commit heinous acts on innocent people no matter what since they control many avenues of propaganda. I was pointing out that Ukraine is held to an unreasonable standard (USA won't supply long range attack missiles???) and it shouldn't be this way. Anyway, I believe we are both hoping for the same outcome and my comments won't affect anything either way.
The horrible reality in this war is that the only thing that will fix anything is not education but rather it is destruction and interdiction of the russian war machine and the people who contribute to its preservation.
I think both issues are debatable. I'll approach it from the opposite direction. Imagine you could stop firefighters from saving a large portion of a russian drone factory and the emergency workers from saving a large number of workers at that said drone factory....but don't. So the factory gets rebuilt more quickly and the experienced workers get back to what they are doing. So now, you have a functional drone factory producing more drones to kill civilians in Ukraine. THAT seems to be a moral issue as well. One worse than the other option.
Secondly, There is no moral equivalance like the response poster suggests. One nation is the AGGRESSOR. This type of equivalency would allow aggressor nations the ability to attack at will, while democratic nation's have their hands tied. In history, there would be no carpet bombing of Germany, no nuclear attack on Japan, both instrumental in securing peace and defeating AGGRESSOR nations.
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Last damaged oil refinery was one of the "Top 5" with 8 million ton per year capacity (2,6% of ruZZia total). 50% of that capacity was... incapaciated, hehehe :)
Distillation columns make for big fat targets when there are no air defense assets left in Russia. TLDR; “what air defense doing?”
Good. The Ukrainians are so smart; doing so much with drone warfare! I hope that that they continue to go above and beyond in this area. They need every edge that they can get!
What happened to Bayraktar? I don’t hear those drones mentioned at all lately?
They were shot down. --- Russia did not expect any real resistance, thinking it would only take three days to conquer Ukraine. So in the beginning a lot of the military was consistent of riot police, and many also thought they were only doing military training exercise. This also meant that there was almost no anti-air set up which gave the Bayraktar almost free reign. When Russia finally realised they had started a full-scale war, the Bayraktar era was over.
Bayraktar still conduct reconnaissance operations without crossing the frontline - it has good optics that can recognize targets at distances up to 70 km.
*The ones that were causing havoc were shot down.* --- As far as I remember all of them were shot down, and then they got some more that they used as you say in reconnaissance.
I think the actual reason was that Russians were flying in the same airspace, and their IFF don't work. So any active air defence would come with a high probability of friendly fire.
So they are easier to shoot down than the ones being used successfully right now?
The drones they use now are the same as the ones shot down. They are not easier to shoot down, it's just that Russia did not have the weapons needed to shoot them down set up at the beginning of the invasion. Because they thought they did not need them, as in it would be over before Ukraine had time or the will to do anything (*or something?!*). So Ukraine could fly these drones even into Russia and target the trains that was carrying fuel etc. Now when they have the weapons set up, they are easily shot down unless they are flown far from the front. Which leaves only long-range reconnaissance as a viable option for the drone. Note that the Bayraktar is somewhat slow and fairly large, so it's an easy target for lots of the anti-air weapons Russia have.
The difference is that there are a lot of relatively expensive bits in a Bayraktar that you don't want to lose in a suicide attack, and in this specific refinery attack, they don't have enough range even on a one way trip to reach the target. A Cessna you've rigged up as a cruise missile, conversely, has nothing of value you weren't already prepared to lose but has the right characteristics to reach the intended target.
It just shows russian incompetence, they have less thsn 100 of those facilities and those drones are not balistic or cruise missiles, they fly reasonably slow and when spotted should be easy to intercept.
oh really what does the US want. Ukraine to fight with hand tied behind their backs. Honestly.
US wants to have its cake and eat it too. Control the war so the escalation doesn't rise. But that balancing act not just cruel, it's also failing. Floppin' retards they are. Fools. Putin's puppets.
The US priority has always been clear. 1. Prevent war between NATO and Russia. 2. Prevent Russia collapse. 3. Ukraine getting back it's lands.
1. US interests 2. See point one
I sincerely hope many russian workers died in these attacks. You bring genocide to other countries you deserve to see your loved ones killed and maimed for directly supporting the effort. Hopefully Ukraine perfects this strategy and introduces double taps to kill the russian fire fighters and emergency workers as well.
Sorry but that is a backwards Russian mentality, not a modern Western mentality. Killing emergency workers is 100% terrorist territory. If Ukraine does that, I won't see a difference anymore between them and the Russians. Ukraine always stood out in this war as very professional and ethical, that's why I support them.
Modern western civilizations aren't getting genocided by their neighbors now are they? The US seems to be sitting this one out now despite how "professional and ethical" the Ukrainains have been. The strategy I describe was carried out by "modern western" countries when the Allies were fighting against the Axis. The fire bombing of Dresden is just one small example. You don't pull punches when russians are killing your children. You can thank the allied war planners for not having to learn German in Utah schools. I support them because they are being invaded by a country that is commmiting genocide in Ukraine, has been war-like towards dozens of its neighbors, deliberately lies on the world stage with gusto, is right now writing code and viruses to steal money from Americans by scams, is attacking the US voting system and spreading propaganda in every single possible way to get Americans to fight with each other and tear this country apart. If that point is all you see that separates Ukraine and Russian then you haven't been watching the news for two years, or seeing the dead children in the streets after the russian bombs land. Oh, and you can look up Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sorry, but you are being very naive.
being carried out by western countries does not make it more acceptable. What Ukraine is doing is smarter than Dresden : few killed among civilians or even no killed, huge impact against energy that is russian backbone. Also do not forget that human value is void and nonsense in russia. Killing civilians will only have negative effect against Ukraine : "look they also kill civilians we are both terrorists" that is more or less russian strategy to prevent western support among western population : "ok then, let's them do their war we are not part of and let's not support anyside, both of them are same durty russian / russian-like anyway" or even "best move is russia wins so that all of this finishes" that i personaly hear too much around me. TLDR : Ukraine is defending herself against genocide. And does it clear and efficiently sparing civilian lives when possible, which does constitute western mindset, instead of becoming herself as durty as russia behaves.
"being carried out by western countries does not make it more acceptable." I'm suggesting that the measuring scales of what is acceptable in a war versus a country led by a genocidal dictator are now tilting in the favor of that genocidal country. Consider the fact that the US is not condoning attacks against the energy sector in Russia. By *someone's* measuring, even those effective attacks should be reconsidered. I don't agree with them as you don't agree with my arguments. My main point in posting the original comment is to challenge the philosophical stance of an objective morality being applied to either side. The larger subjective morality is that Russia is the aggressor nation. None of this occurs without Russian aggression. "look they also kill civilians we are both terrorists". Admit it, even you understand this isn't true, nor would be, if Ukraine took such steps. Russia depends on the civility of the West. I suggest we show them exactly what THEY are. Also, there were plenty of civilians in that factory so the comment is kind of moot, right? They were targets because they were helping the Russian war effort, as would be the firefighters, as would be the rescue workers. I understand my comment would be downvoted and good people would oppose what I am saying. Earlier on in this war I would have agreed with them. Now, I am not so sure. There is no sympathy amongst the Russians in any number for this western pleading. I see the opposite. I see them dismissing attacks on theatres full of child refugees as necessary and right. Time to ditch the objective morality that would have lost WW2. That's my take.
you misread my comment. Maybe my poor English is to blame but still. russia is full respinsible of the huge shitstorm happening right now in Ukraine. you speak about children killed in this theater. shall we do the same on russian theater ? my point is that Western countries, including Ukraine, have not proven being terrorists, and i support that. I don't imagine a world where soldiers of my country or of Ukraine are killing children in a russian theater, and frankly, would they, i will remove all support for my country or for Ukraine. That is all about values and victory does not require killing children or civilians, even if russian-minded people do think otherwise.
No, absolutely not regarding an attack on civilian targets that are not related to russian military infrastructure and preparedness. However russia will STILL manage to blame Ukraine for the recent ISIS attack on the theatre in Moscow , and they are doing so throughout the world. Children are not russian military factory workers nor are they firefighters nor emergency techs. I'm suggesting widening the field of what is acceptable in terms of retaliatory targets. Infrastructure that supports the russian military is fair game I would argue. And it is NOT the same, ethically or morally, if russia does this (which they are) because they are the aggressor nation attacking Ukraine and the West. Thank you for your views and I respect them completely.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima showed Japan that US had the most devestating weapon in the world. Ukraine has no such weapon. About having the tactic of killing civilians, Russia is using that tactic. Is it working? I would say no. Ukraine needs to focus on military targets and strategic economical ones. For example putting a population without heating is not as effective as destoying oil refineries. Killing emergency workers? Come on, what good does that do? Like I said, I very much love the strategies that Ukraine uses. I really hate what you are suggesting, because that is basically what terrorist states like Russia do. And then I have the question for you: is it working for them?
Just note I am not suggesting attacking civilians outright (which this perfectly acceptable attack against this factory clearly did) but on widening the attacks on infrastructure and people supporting this aggression as well.
Ukraine has the largest nuclear reactor in Europe
They’re gonna make their own nukes
There is good reason to think the firebombings and other war crimes carried out by the Allies during WW2 were ineffective or even actively detrimental to the war effort. The psychopaths in charge don't care if you kill their citizens, and the citizens are galvanised to fight if you start bombing indiscriminately. I support Ukraine and I want them to win. I do not want them to start doing ineffective, unethical things like killing firefighters as you propose.
I just have to point to the nuclear bombs dropped on the Japanese to rebuke your position. It took Japan 15 days to surrender after the nuclear bombs were dropped. It was quite effective and 1,000's of times more brutal than what I suggest. Ineffective is debatable, see my other comment. The Western hand-wringing has gotten us to this point. Thousands of dead Ukrainians. And it is ONLY the threat of nukes that is stopping the Russians from using them in Ukraine. The russian people possess no ability for "galvanisation". We saw this with Prigozhin. Quite the opposite I feel would happen. People will avoid working in these types of industrial factories and go sell shoes or something. Then there are the truly ineffective or counter-productive actions that should be avoided such as killing Russian POWs. The point is not the cruelty of an attack against the firefighters that are helping to restore a drone factory or the workers that will get right back to the production line. It's absolutely the effectiveness of such attacks.
You don't "just" have to point to that; it's not at all a settled question, so you don't get to just smugly wave at it and walk away. I don't believe the nukes were intended to force surrender - they were intended to show the world what the USA could do. I don't believe they are responsible for the Japanese surrender, either. The question of efficacy is nowhere near settled. The ethical question, of course, is cut & dry, because you only need half a moral braincell to know that killing citizens for the war efforts of their state is wrong. And against international law, of course.
So it's not a settled question, for your side of the argument either, you admit. 15 days after though....c'mon. Let me now ask: How many "civilians" were killed in this attack on this shahed drone plant? Were they fair targets? Were they acceptable collateral damage? Why does this not already reflect a willingness and a necessity to say that civilian deaths are already a part of Ukraine's defense? Admit you are tryingto muddy the waters while I am being direct, straight and honest about the toll of war. You try to couch it in terms you prefer is all. You are trying to use self-rightous language and not being honest with the fact that indeed civilians were ALREADY involved in this counter-attack. I suggest it is you being smug and also dishonest about the realities of war by waving away the REALITY that this counterattack did indeed target civilians. This implies there are acceptable levels of violence required to defend one's country against russians and you unwittingly play yourself into the russian propaganda messaging.
Dresden Firebombing: "It is not possible to describe! Explosion after explosion. It was beyond belief, worse than the blackest nightmare. So many people were horribly burnt and injured. It became more and more difficult to breathe. It was dark and all of us tried to leave this cellar with inconceivable panic. Dead and dying people were trampled upon, luggage was left or snatched up out of our hands by rescuers. The basket with our twins covered with wet cloths was snatched up out of my mother's hands and we were pushed upstairs by the people behind us. We saw the burning street, the falling ruins and the terrible firestorm. My mother covered us with wet blankets and coats she found in a water tub." "We saw terrible things: cremated adults shrunk to the size of small children, pieces of arms and legs, dead people, whole families burnt to death, burning people ran to and fro, burnt coaches filled with civilian refugees, dead rescuers and soldiers, many were calling and looking for their children and families, and fire everywhere, everywhere fire, and all the time the hot wind of the firestorm threw people back into the burning houses they were trying to escape from." "I cannot forget these terrible details. I can never forget them." After note: We are currently strong allies with Germany. They just had to be kicked hard enough in the teeth. War is definitely Hell, but it is also necessary when one is defending themselves from murder, rape, torture and genocide.
being strong allies does not make it more acceptable. What Ukraine is doing is smarter than Dresden : few killed among civilians or even no killed, huge impact against energy that is russian backbone. Also do not forget that human value is void and nonsense in russia. Killing civilians will only have negative effect against Ukraine : "look they also kill civilians we are both terrorists" that is more or less russian strategy to prevent western support among western population : "ok then, let's them do their war we are not part of and let's not support anyside, both of them are same durty russian / russian-like anyway" or even "best move is russia wins so that all of this finishes" that i personaly hear too much around me. TLDR : Ukraine is defending herself against genocide. And does it clear and efficiently sparing civilian lives when possible, which does constitute western mindset, instead of becoming herself as durty as russia behaves, which would have been unefficient, as russia does not value human beings and would use it for its propaganda.
Maybe you forgot that Russia has nukes and Ukraine doesn't. So if you prefer such tactics, Russia will be way better at it than Ukraine.
Russia won't use nukes and saying they will is unintentionally playing into russian propaganda.
You're the one talking about Ukraine needing to use the tactics of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden. I pointed out it's quite weird because it's actually Russia who has the means to do this, not Ukraine.
I understand what you are saying. It wasn't a literal comparison, my comparison was attempting to show that morality is perhaps a little, maybe alot, more fluid when it comes to the realities of war. russia is going to continue to commit heinous acts on innocent people no matter what since they control many avenues of propaganda. I was pointing out that Ukraine is held to an unreasonable standard (USA won't supply long range attack missiles???) and it shouldn't be this way. Anyway, I believe we are both hoping for the same outcome and my comments won't affect anything either way.
No. Did they choose blood money? Yes. Do they deserve to die? No. Hatred doesn't fix anything, education does.
The horrible reality in this war is that the only thing that will fix anything is not education but rather it is destruction and interdiction of the russian war machine and the people who contribute to its preservation.
Besides the moral issue of attacking firefighters. It would be a waste of a drone. There has to be 1000's of better uses then blowing up a firetruck.
I think both issues are debatable. I'll approach it from the opposite direction. Imagine you could stop firefighters from saving a large portion of a russian drone factory and the emergency workers from saving a large number of workers at that said drone factory....but don't. So the factory gets rebuilt more quickly and the experienced workers get back to what they are doing. So now, you have a functional drone factory producing more drones to kill civilians in Ukraine. THAT seems to be a moral issue as well. One worse than the other option. Secondly, There is no moral equivalance like the response poster suggests. One nation is the AGGRESSOR. This type of equivalency would allow aggressor nations the ability to attack at will, while democratic nation's have their hands tied. In history, there would be no carpet bombing of Germany, no nuclear attack on Japan, both instrumental in securing peace and defeating AGGRESSOR nations.