> From the point of view of morality, I'm of the opinion that Russia did it. Even if Ukraine actually pulled the trigger. Are you talking about the war at larg

> From the point of view of morality, I'm of the opinion that Russia did it. Even if Ukraine actually pulled the trigger. Are you talking about the war at large or about the specific question who blew up the dam? I'd agree with the sibling comment here. In war, morality is always crystal clear for the parties that are at war - we are the good guys, the others are the bad guys. I'd go out on a limb and say this is almost a requirement to be able to fight a war in the first place: If you didn't think you are in the right, how would you even motivate your own troops to risk their lives for your cause? Usually, when historians look back at the war later, they find the actual morality to be anything but clear. > if you and your buddy get into someone's house to rob it in the middle of the night, and the homeowner gets his revolver and shoots your buddy dead, and you run out and the police catch you, it will be you that will be prosecuted for murder. You created the situation that led to the end result. This isn't how it works. In this case, you have two separate crimes - robbery and murder - with two different perpetrators - the burglars and the homeowner. The homeowner has a good chance that his charge will be dropped as a case of self-defence - but in no way would the robbers suddenly end up with a murder charge against themselves because they are "obviously" the bad guys. (And by the way, the homeowner might in fact be prosecuted for murder if it turned out there was no self-defence situation and he just shot the robber out of rage. You can use this to counter the russian argument too, btw: Even if you assume, for the sake of the argument, that Russia was threatened by an expanding NATO and by a militarized Ukraine, is it still "self-defence" to invade - and keep invading - a country, annexing land, attacking power stations and grain storage sites?)