5 ms·

> Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Ukraine of attacking the bridge in an "act of terrorism". When 2 countries are at war, with active combat going on,

> Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Ukraine of attacking the bridge in an "act of terrorism". When 2 countries are at war, with active combat going on, is an act of terrorism possible? Isn’t it just a normal thing in war to destroy infrastructure?

ummonk 4y ago
The bridge is certainly a legitimate military target. However, if indeed a bomb in a civilian-marked truck were used as Russia alleges (I have my doubts based on the footage and pattern of destruction), then it would be an act of terrorism that violates the rules of war (and such an act would be doubly egregious due to the civilians killed as collateral damage in Thai attack).
- pydry 4y ago
  Whether a truck was used or not 3 civilians were still killed.
  - shawabawa3 4y ago
    Collateral damage isn't against any international laws of war as far as I know
    - ummonk 4y ago
      Yes, but if you violate the laws of war in an attack (e.g. if we stipulate that Ukraine did use a truck bomb, either with or without the knowledge of the truck driver), then the entire attack is unjustified and the collateral damage becomes murder.
  - atoav 4y ago
    Forgive the cynical response, but: more civilians have been killed for far less. Surgical precision drone strikes at weddings for example, where it turns out nobody there was a terrorist.
    - pydry 4y ago
      For sure they have. The thing that makes me feel sick about this one is that it's an attack that killed civilians that has been widely celebrated. I dont remember this happening before. Being reminded that it is legal under our interpretation of international law doesnt make it feel any better. The same would apply to virtually all Russian attacks too.
  - throw_a_grenade 4y ago
    As bad as it sounds, it's not against laws of war. For yet more clear example, munition factories are worked by 100% civilians (or close to 100%) and they're still legitimate targets. It's enough that civiians weren't deliberately targeted. Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing, where a train got hit while passing a bridge, which was the real target. 20-55 civilians were dead, but ICTY found no wrongdoing, because the train was just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pilot failed to notice it.
    - pydry 4y ago
      If you take an equally liberal interpretation (which they obviously do), there isnt any clear evidence that Russia has broken any laws of war either. Regardless of the law, I think it's pretty sickening to watch Russians military attacks that inadvertently killed civilians. Im no less revulsed by us doing it.
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > If you take an equally liberal interpretation (which they obviously do), there isnt any clear evidence that Russia has broken any laws of war either. Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war?. Cause we have plenty of evidence of that alone, let alone the evidence of Russians directly targeting civilian buildings and evacuation corridors.
        pydry 4y ago
        >Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war? It is, which is why Lyudmila Denisova made up accusations in order to get more weapons for Ukraine. She made the mistake of getting caught doing it and so was fired. A lot of people assume that this was an isolated incident. I dont. There is a lack of independent observers of war crimes (there are satellite photos of dead bodies, but that in itself doesnt prove war crimes were committed) as well as powerful incentives for Ukraine to lie about this on an industrial scale - Ukrainian military supply lines are utterly dependent on western sympathy not drying up.
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  > violates the rules of war How many wars didn’t violate the rules of war?
  - ummonk 4y ago
    Plenty actually, but they tend to be low intensity border wars.
amelius 4y ago
According to Putin, there is no war; it is a "special military operation". Therefore, I suppose he can only call this an act of terrorism.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  Are we sure that doesn't make the entire "military operation" an extended act of terrorism? I'll accept that in lieu of admitting it's a war.
AndriyKunitsyn 4y ago
Russia never declared war on Ukraine. It's all "special military operation" for them, lots and lots of untrained Russian soldiers going to Ukraine for some reason and not coming back. What's even better is that recently, Russian government proclaimed some oblasts of Ukraine to be Russian territory, _even the areas they never controlled_, such as Zaporizhzhia city or Sloviansk. Russian government is not all there.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > What's even better is that recently, Russian government proclaimed some oblasts of Ukraine to be Russian territory, _even the areas they never controlled_, such as Zaporizhzhia city Even better, Russia shelled what they considered their own city (Zaporizhzhia) in retaliation for the strike on the Kerch Bridge.
  - bagels 4y ago
    Apartment buildings... The claim of terrorism is aimed at convincing Russians, not everyone else.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
      Yeah, many people don't get that. They listen to Putin's drivel and conclude he's either stupid or crazy. But his message is mostly aimed at the Russian population, already believing most of what they see in their state TV. In their minds, Ukraine is the aggressor and Russia is the protector and liberator.
- rgbrenner 4y ago
  The "special military operation" is just a russian legal thing. The UN definition is based on actions, and this still counts as a war under UN rules.
sbmthakur 4y ago
In a war fought according to rules, hitting anything that's not actively used by a belligerent is illegal.
- neoromantique 4y ago
  This bridge has been used to transfer military equipment and heavy machinery pretty much non-stop for the past seven months, so it is a valid target.
  - sbmthakur 4y ago
    That's correct. That's the reason why a lot of civilian infrastructure in Gaza becomes a legitimate military target during Hamas-Israel confrontations.
    - rootw0rm 4y ago
      Gaza is a concentration camp, there are no legitimate military targets there. https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-iran-israel-jerusalem-embassy/ https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-...
      - graymatters 4y ago
        That’s interesting. Can you name any other concentration camps that shoot thousands of rockets at civilian cities? ‘Cause that’s what coming out of Gaza.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Bridges are the kind of poster child for civil infrastructure that is usually targeted by belligerents in a war. The Kerch Bridge is a key part of Russian military logistics for Crimea, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it's a target.
- Arainach 4y ago
  Define "actively used". Is an ammo depot with no one currently removing items from it actively used? What about a bridge that's used to bring in reinforcements but has no vehicles currently on it?
pydry 4y ago
>When 2 countries are at war, with active combat going on, is an act of terrorism possible? "3 civilians killed by bomb in terrorist attack on bridge" is how we used to report ISIS doing the exact same thing. Im not sure if a seat at the UN is the difference between this being a terrorist attack and a glorious act of bravery.
- regularjack 4y ago
  ISIS isn't a country.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mickotron 4y ago
  If their aim was killing civilians, they would have chosen a busy time. They chose the least busiest time. Also, to clear the bridge of all traffic to then attack, would reveal your intentions to the enemy. There was no way the bridge was being destroyed without casualties. Civilian deaths are always bad, however if this act shortens the length of the war, that will save countless more lives than the ones lost on that bridge. Meanwhile, Russia retaliates by hitting residential buildings with rockets. I am eager to hear what you think of that.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >Meanwhile, Russia retaliates by hitting residential buildings with rockets. I am eager to hear what you think of that. I think they share your willingness to enthusiastically excuse collateral murder in pursuit of military advantage. Enthusiastic supporters on both sides of this war are strikingly similar.
    - neoromantique 4y ago
      Attack on one of the largest supply routes during the least crowded time to minimize potential victims vs shelling an apartment building far away from the front lines in the middle of night. One is just not like the other, no matter how you spin it.
EGreg 4y ago
It's hard to say. For example, when the new secular Afghan government called the USSR to come "help them" with the local population, the USA and Saudis secretly funded and trained local fighters (Mujahideen) as local resistance, as well as encouraging foreign fighters (Afghan Arabs) to travel and also attack with Stinger Missiles and RPGs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_used_by_mujahideen_during_Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_use... But also blowing up things up to and including civilian infrastructure. Lots of bridges, etc. were attacked for years. This is a guerilla insurgency. Wikipedia says: They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members, and laid siege to small rural outposts. In March 1982, a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings. In the same month, a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up. In June 1982 a column of about 1,000 young communist party members sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 30 km of Kabul, with heavy loss of life. On 4 September 1985, insurgents shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, killing all 52 people aboard. So even if USSR "won", or supported the local secular government, they'd get attacked, similar to how the Taliban would fight the USA in the last 20 years and eventually make our army leave too (this year). The USA used this force to, in the words of Brezhinski, national security advisor "make the soviets bleed for as much and as long as possible": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0 Unfortunately, the longer a protracted proxy war like this goes on, the more civilians are killed. After the Soviets "won" in Afghanistan, the ensuing proxy war claimed the lives of 2 million Afghan civilians! https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War In Ukraine, the CIA thought Russia would quickly make the government in Kyiv capitulate and agree to Putin's demands, so they started training Ukrainian paramilitaries to do the work of Mujahideen, here is an article in Yahoo News about that from before Feb 24: https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-may-take-central-role-if-russia-invades-185258008.html https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-...
notacoward 4y ago
"Terrorism" does have a real meaning, but in practical real-world effect its meaning is potentially or actually lethal acts of violence/destruction by groups we refuse to recognize as legitimate. Yes, that sucks. I wish people would use the word more honestly.

ummonk 4y ago

The bridge is certainly a legitimate military target. However, if indeed a bomb in a civilian-marked truck were used as Russia alleges (I have my doubts based on the footage and pattern of destruction), then it would be an act of terrorism that violates the rules of war (and such an act would be doubly egregious due to the civilians killed as collateral damage in Thai attack).

pydry 4y ago
Whether a truck was used or not 3 civilians were still killed.
- shawabawa3 4y ago
  Collateral damage isn't against any international laws of war as far as I know
  - ummonk 4y ago
    Yes, but if you violate the laws of war in an attack (e.g. if we stipulate that Ukraine did use a truck bomb, either with or without the knowledge of the truck driver), then the entire attack is unjustified and the collateral damage becomes murder.
- atoav 4y ago
  Forgive the cynical response, but: more civilians have been killed for far less. Surgical precision drone strikes at weddings for example, where it turns out nobody there was a terrorist.
  - pydry 4y ago
    For sure they have. The thing that makes me feel sick about this one is that it's an attack that killed civilians that has been widely celebrated. I dont remember this happening before. Being reminded that it is legal under our interpretation of international law doesnt make it feel any better. The same would apply to virtually all Russian attacks too.
- throw_a_grenade 4y ago
  As bad as it sounds, it's not against laws of war. For yet more clear example, munition factories are worked by 100% civilians (or close to 100%) and they're still legitimate targets. It's enough that civiians weren't deliberately targeted. Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing, where a train got hit while passing a bridge, which was the real target. 20-55 civilians were dead, but ICTY found no wrongdoing, because the train was just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pilot failed to notice it.
  - pydry 4y ago
    If you take an equally liberal interpretation (which they obviously do), there isnt any clear evidence that Russia has broken any laws of war either. Regardless of the law, I think it's pretty sickening to watch Russians military attacks that inadvertently killed civilians. Im no less revulsed by us doing it.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > If you take an equally liberal interpretation (which they obviously do), there isnt any clear evidence that Russia has broken any laws of war either. Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war?. Cause we have plenty of evidence of that alone, let alone the evidence of Russians directly targeting civilian buildings and evacuation corridors.
      - pydry 4y ago
        >Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war? It is, which is why Lyudmila Denisova made up accusations in order to get more weapons for Ukraine. She made the mistake of getting caught doing it and so was fired. A lot of people assume that this was an isolated incident. I dont. There is a lack of independent observers of war crimes (there are satellite photos of dead bodies, but that in itself doesnt prove war crimes were committed) as well as powerful incentives for Ukraine to lie about this on an industrial scale - Ukrainian military supply lines are utterly dependent on western sympathy not drying up.
shepherdjerred 4y ago
> violates the rules of war How many wars didn’t violate the rules of war?
- ummonk 4y ago
  Plenty actually, but they tend to be low intensity border wars.

amelius 4y ago

According to Putin, there is no war; it is a "special military operation". Therefore, I suppose he can only call this an act of terrorism.

andrewflnr 4y ago
Are we sure that doesn't make the entire "military operation" an extended act of terrorism? I'll accept that in lieu of admitting it's a war.

AndriyKunitsyn 4y ago

Russia never declared war on Ukraine. It's all "special military operation" for them, lots and lots of untrained Russian soldiers going to Ukraine for some reason and not coming back. What's even better is that recently, Russian government proclaimed some oblasts of Ukraine to be Russian territory, _even the areas they never controlled_, such as Zaporizhzhia city or Sloviansk. Russian government is not all there.

jcranmer 4y ago
> What's even better is that recently, Russian government proclaimed some oblasts of Ukraine to be Russian territory, _even the areas they never controlled_, such as Zaporizhzhia city Even better, Russia shelled what they considered their own city (Zaporizhzhia) in retaliation for the strike on the Kerch Bridge.
- bagels 4y ago
  Apartment buildings... The claim of terrorism is aimed at convincing Russians, not everyone else.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    Yeah, many people don't get that. They listen to Putin's drivel and conclude he's either stupid or crazy. But his message is mostly aimed at the Russian population, already believing most of what they see in their state TV. In their minds, Ukraine is the aggressor and Russia is the protector and liberator.
rgbrenner 4y ago
The "special military operation" is just a russian legal thing. The UN definition is based on actions, and this still counts as a war under UN rules.

sbmthakur 4y ago

In a war fought according to rules, hitting anything that's not actively used by a belligerent is illegal.

neoromantique 4y ago
This bridge has been used to transfer military equipment and heavy machinery pretty much non-stop for the past seven months, so it is a valid target.
- sbmthakur 4y ago
  That's correct. That's the reason why a lot of civilian infrastructure in Gaza becomes a legitimate military target during Hamas-Israel confrontations.
  - rootw0rm 4y ago
    Gaza is a concentration camp, there are no legitimate military targets there. https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-iran-israel-jerusalem-embassy/ https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-...
    - graymatters 4y ago
      That’s interesting. Can you name any other concentration camps that shoot thousands of rockets at civilian cities? ‘Cause that’s what coming out of Gaza.
jcranmer 4y ago
Bridges are the kind of poster child for civil infrastructure that is usually targeted by belligerents in a war. The Kerch Bridge is a key part of Russian military logistics for Crimea, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it's a target.
Arainach 4y ago
Define "actively used". Is an ammo depot with no one currently removing items from it actively used? What about a bridge that's used to bring in reinforcements but has no vehicles currently on it?

pydry 4y ago

>When 2 countries are at war, with active combat going on, is an act of terrorism possible? "3 civilians killed by bomb in terrorist attack on bridge" is how we used to report ISIS doing the exact same thing. Im not sure if a seat at the UN is the difference between this being a terrorist attack and a glorious act of bravery.

regularjack 4y ago
ISIS isn't a country.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mickotron 4y ago
If their aim was killing civilians, they would have chosen a busy time. They chose the least busiest time. Also, to clear the bridge of all traffic to then attack, would reveal your intentions to the enemy. There was no way the bridge was being destroyed without casualties. Civilian deaths are always bad, however if this act shortens the length of the war, that will save countless more lives than the ones lost on that bridge. Meanwhile, Russia retaliates by hitting residential buildings with rockets. I am eager to hear what you think of that.
- pydry 4y ago
  >Meanwhile, Russia retaliates by hitting residential buildings with rockets. I am eager to hear what you think of that. I think they share your willingness to enthusiastically excuse collateral murder in pursuit of military advantage. Enthusiastic supporters on both sides of this war are strikingly similar.
  - neoromantique 4y ago
    Attack on one of the largest supply routes during the least crowded time to minimize potential victims vs shelling an apartment building far away from the front lines in the middle of night. One is just not like the other, no matter how you spin it.

EGreg 4y ago

It's hard to say. For example, when the new secular Afghan government called the USSR to come "help them" with the local population, the USA and Saudis secretly funded and trained local fighters (Mujahideen) as local resistance, as well as encouraging foreign fighters (Afghan Arabs) to travel and also attack with Stinger Missiles and RPGs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_used_by_mujahideen_during_Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_use... But also blowing up things up to and including civilian infrastructure. Lots of bridges, etc. were attacked for years. This is a guerilla insurgency. Wikipedia says: They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members, and laid siege to small rural outposts. In March 1982, a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings. In the same month, a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up. In June 1982 a column of about 1,000 young communist party members sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 30 km of Kabul, with heavy loss of life. On 4 September 1985, insurgents shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, killing all 52 people aboard. So even if USSR "won", or supported the local secular government, they'd get attacked, similar to how the Taliban would fight the USA in the last 20 years and eventually make our army leave too (this year). The USA used this force to, in the words of Brezhinski, national security advisor "make the soviets bleed for as much and as long as possible": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0 Unfortunately, the longer a protracted proxy war like this goes on, the more civilians are killed. After the Soviets "won" in Afghanistan, the ensuing proxy war claimed the lives of 2 million Afghan civilians! https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War In Ukraine, the CIA thought Russia would quickly make the government in Kyiv capitulate and agree to Putin's demands, so they started training Ukrainian paramilitaries to do the work of Mujahideen, here is an article in Yahoo News about that from before Feb 24: https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-may-take-central-role-if-russia-invades-185258008.html https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-...

notacoward 4y ago

"Terrorism" does have a real meaning, but in practical real-world effect its meaning is potentially or actually lethal acts of violence/destruction by groups we refuse to recognize as legitimate. Yes, that sucks. I wish people would use the word more honestly.