It IS unfair to those Russians who want no part of Putin’s war.
Destroy military targets all you want, but regular Russians who despise Putin and his actions as much as the rest of us need civilian infrastructure such as bridges for civilian things such as being able to do their jobs or visit their friends and families.
Bridges(and other transport infrastructure) are valid military targets. Unlike children hospitals for example. Seems to me that you, just like much of moskals, still don’t grasp what starting a war means.
Tired platitudes do not a foreign policy make, nor will they win a war. It would be nice if escalation didn’t demand a response, but “turning the other cheek” is surprisingly ineffective when you’re standing on heaping mountains of your own dead civilians.
I agree that two wrongs don’t make a right. But when Russia keeps destroying critical infrastructure, commiting war crimes and playing dirty, how long should the Ukrainians lay flat? It took years before they were allowed from the west to strike back using western military equipment. Now Ukraine are finally engaging the battle on even terms
Anything that makes the movement of heavy armor or troops easier in an area (especially a river) is a legit military target. Maybe Russia should try not invading its neighbors. Then its bridges would be intact.
Open season on any key infrastructure in that region. It’s almost unfair to Russia. :P
It IS unfair to those Russians who want no part of Putin’s war.
Destroy military targets all you want, but regular Russians who despise Putin and his actions as much as the rest of us need civilian infrastructure such as bridges for civilian things such as being able to do their jobs or visit their friends and families.
The Russians who have a right to complain about that are already busy blowing up their own infrastructure.
Bridges(and other transport infrastructure) are valid military targets. Unlike children hospitals for example. Seems to me that you, just like much of moskals, still don’t grasp what starting a war means.
I would argue the same goes for civil Ukrainians but Russia didn’t care about them so why should Ukraine do the same? It’s war after all
Because two wrongs don’t make a right and everyone should strive to at least be better than Putin.
Which makes attacks on military targets legitimate, but not on civilian infrastructure.
Tired platitudes do not a foreign policy make, nor will they win a war. It would be nice if escalation didn’t demand a response, but “turning the other cheek” is surprisingly ineffective when you’re standing on heaping mountains of your own dead civilians.
I agree that two wrongs don’t make a right. But when Russia keeps destroying critical infrastructure, commiting war crimes and playing dirty, how long should the Ukrainians lay flat? It took years before they were allowed from the west to strike back using western military equipment. Now Ukraine are finally engaging the battle on even terms
Anything that makes the movement of heavy armor or troops easier in an area (especially a river) is a legit military target. Maybe Russia should try not invading its neighbors. Then its bridges would be intact.
In war there are no innocent bystanders.
The word “almost” is doing a LOT of heavy lifting in that comment…