We’ve all seen those warehouses going up in flames:
Wildberries is the biggest ecommerce site in Russia and they’ve lost a big chunk of their inventory and logistics capability. You can’t deliver out of those burned down warehouses and I would not be surprised if not only prices are increasing, but if you are simply unable to get something delivered currently. We’ve all seen those sellers crying crocodile tears, but the sensible thing to do is to get your stuff out of the currently existing Wildberries warehouses before they get burned down. That will have an effect on stuff available.
I have to admit, for a while I thought the Wildberries warehouses contained actual wild berries…
To be clear here, whether you believe the strikes are justified or not (I’m leaning towards not until evidence to the contrary comes in), this is a bad thing. War threatening the lives and livelihoods of civilians is a bad thing.
Edit:
deleted by creator
I can’t think of a more humane way to put civilian domestic pressure towards political change in Russia, can you?
Using the military to put civilian domestic pressure on governments is a war crime. Bombing civilians (which, yes, people got killed and injured in these) is a war crime unless they’re in the way of a legal military target. This isn’t okay when Israel does it, it’s not okay when America does it and it’s definitely not okay when Ukraine does it.
And this is better than, say, schools being targeted to create that pressure to end the war.
Some war crimes are worse than others, yes, but they’re still all war crimes.
deleted by creator
Jesus christ this kind of thought is how genocides happen. You are literally saying if nobody can force me to have a moral, then i’m justified to behave as inhumane as my enemy. This is a line of thinking that a nazi gerarc woukd be proud of. Stay human people, we are getting very close to a world of barbarism.
deleted by creator
I’m not accusing you of being an apologist for Russian war crimes even though I could characterize you that way
Why? Because i criticise Ukraine i am necessarely on Russia’s side? I literally said in the comment before that nothing excuses Russia from attacking civilian structures, as much as i think Russia’s governemnt is a criminal for invading Ukraine and causing death and destruction. Is after saying this my opinion still going to be discarded because comes by a putinist in your mind?
I don’t think it’s fair to take the reasoning of my position and say it’s something a “nazi would be proud of”. A Nazi would not be putting this level of thought into the morality of war crimes, and you know this.
I understand i sound harsh, but i think it’s very important ot be clear here: your line of thinking is exactly what allowed the holocaust and other war crimes and crimes agaisnt humanity to happen. if you really think nazis didn’t evaluate their morality in doing what they did, i strongly suggest you to take a deeper look at conflicts and not banalise them as “the good guys with their beautiful morality” “and the bad guys which clearly are the bad guys because they don’t haver any morality”. This is not how conflicts, the world or human beings work. Conflicts have always a cause and who starts them always thinks they are doing for a just cause.
I think the world isn’t black and white in morality, and I think it’s naive to act as though it is. Immoral actions are sometimes warranted, I think. Do you agree with that principle at all? If not, we just have different moral views.
I do agree absolutely there is no black and white, but i’m the one who you accused of being a “russian apologist” becuase i criticise Ukraine’s behaviour in this war. Isn’t that a black and white kind of thinking? It’s important to not circumstanciate principles, but adopt them widely. Otherwise they are just a gimmick to push somebody’s point.
You can’t, in my view, tell victims of war crimes that they can’t respond in any meaningful way when you aren’t willing to enforce the law against the perpetrator. Another context that’s important. You can only morally tell people to let rule of law work when rule of law is being enforced; you can’t tell them to rely on a justice system that is non existent.
We are not discussing about responding in a “meaningful way”, here we are talking about allowing attacks against civilian and civilian infrastructure as a response. Your line of thinking could be used the same way by Al-Qaida (“The americans killed us for decades and nobody cared, so we had to attack them with terrorism because it’s the only efficient way to hit them”), ISIS/Daesh (“Our people have been subject of a western crusade, we answer back with our own”), Hamas and any other reprehensible group that uses terrorism as a form of attack because they feel they have no other way to hit their enemy. Do you see how dangerous is that way of thinking and in what terrible spiral sends people?
deleted by creator
Okay, before I respond: Your point is that terror bombing is okay when you have been terror bombed already, right? That’s what you’re trying to say? And yes, using bombing “to put civilian domestic pressure towards political change” is the literal definition of terror bombing.
It’s really worrying that people cna write stuff like that and not realising there is something wring with it. Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Are you going to be reductive and childish like in your edit rather than use adult conversation?
I mean, I am using adult conversation as you can see. I can do two things at once.
Are you saying it is wrong for an abused slave to murder his master, who has tortured him and killed or sold his family, when he escapes?
No, but killing the master’s children would be. Collapsing governments with their civilian populations in the way you just did is both fallacious and dangerous (Zionists for example love to do this); there are Russians who are attacking Ukraine and Russians who are not and one group cannot be punished for the actions of the other. I’d shed no tears if the attacks targeted the Russian army or the political leadership giving it orders, but attacking civilian infrastructure without a clear military goal cannot be justified as retaliation anymore than getting punched by a man would justify punching his cousin.
deleted by creator
Some war crimes are worse than others, yes, but they’re still all war crimes.
Maybe but the warehouse attacks aren’t war crimes, so the point is moot.
That’s an argument I can more or less respect (though in the absence of better evidence I disagree with it), but that’s not what they other person is saying. They’re saying that they’re war crimes and that’s okay, which is what I’m taking issue with.
And warehouse attacks aren’t war crimes, though, so the point is moot.
This isn’t okay when Israel does it
Comparing this to what Isntreal is doing is a biiiiiit of a stretch.
Israel strikes critical basic supply warehouses (if you can call them warehouses) with food, water and other basic necessities.
Russians can get their stuff from a ton of other places besides Wildberries.
Comparing this to what Isntreal is doing is a biiiiiit of a stretch.
Like I said elsewhere, they’re (very) different scales of the same thing and therefore deserve different amounts of the same kind of condemnation, in the same way slapping a random person in the street and beating them half to death are both assault.
I really struggle with your post. Yes, war is bad. And it would be great if humanity could live in peace. It would be great if Russia was a normal country trying to live in peace and striving for prosperity. But I feel that it is really blind to what really is happening: Russia attacked Ukraine, is commiting a genocide, is murdering civilians, stealing children, torturing and so on. So Ukraine has a right to defend itself from being occupied. Wildberries seems to be involved in military logistics and that makes their warehouses totally valid targets. Yeah, that is bad for all those Russian eCommerce sellers, but the take “War threatening the lives and livelihoods of civilians is a bad thing” is really blind to what really happening. “Stopping a country from murdering another countries civilians is a good thing” would be the better take
Wildberries seems to be involved in military logistics and that makes their warehouses totally valid targets.
Kind of. If Wildberries is actually involved in military logistics to a significant degree (rather than, say, a dozen or so soldiers who happened to buy rifles off it) then warehouses that are being used for that purpose are 100% valid military targets. That doesn’t mean all Wildberries warehouses are military targets, only ones with significant (compared to the size of the warehouse) supplies headed for the Russian army or that are regularly used in Russian logistics. For example if a warehouse contains rifles or drone parts for the Russian military then by all means bomb it. But, to put it bluntly, I find that very unlikely, so without real evidence (which the Ukrainian side has not yet provided) I’m more willing to believe that this is a domestic pressure campaign (i.e. terror bombing). If you find the Ukrainian statement credible then all power to you and we don’t actually disagree on much here; this is the possibility I addressed with “whether you believe the strikes are justified or not” and it’s one I can more or less accept. Compare to the other reply chain, which is arguing that terror bombing is okay when Ukraine is doing it.
However, whether the strikes themselves are justified is only tangential to my point. For example if you had a residential building with a weapons factory occupying half of it, it’d be 100% legal to bomb it, but the actual residential building being bombed would be unfortunate collateral damage. That’s the point I’m making here: At best the effects of the Wildberries bombings on the lives of regular people are unfortunate collateral damage, not something to be celebrated as you see people doing here and elsewhere. One can support Ukraine defending itself while having a modicum of sympathy for the innocent people whose lives are being negatively affected by that.
But, to put it bluntly, I find that very unlikely, so without real evidence (which the Ukrainian side has not yet provided) I’m more willing to believe that this is a domestic pressure campaign (i.e. terror bombing).
The evidence was right there on the website. They were selling f.e. military drone parts and military supplies. You can see the screenshots yourself. There is nothing secret here - you could buy a 10km spool of fiberglass and FPV drones and other military supplies.
Not sure why you are putting in doubt stuff that has been proven without any doubt. Click here: You can buy a 10km spool of fiberglass for your drone. Which is totally what you need for your special operation, but not as a civilian
https://www.wildberries.ru/catalog/0/search.aspx?search=g657a2
Why would a Russian military supplier source the drones and glassfiber from some seller on “Amazon” instead of going directly to the source in China?
Honest question. A single soldier who needs these parts once in a while, sure. But a military supplier will need larger quantities and a reliable stream of parts.
Serhii Kuzan, chairman of the Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Centre, told the BBC that Wildberries was a “vital component” of Russian logistics, and that its website had been used by Russian volunteers to purchase military equipment including walkie-talkies, body armour and drone components. “The primary rationale for striking Wildberries’ warehouses is to disrupt Russian logistics and the supply of dual-use goods, critical electronics, sanctioned goods and the like to the Russian army and Russian arms manufacturers,” he said. “The collateral damage from such strikes could also have a serious impact on the Russian economy, as well as a psychological effect on Russian society and, likely, on continued support for the war.” Russia has targeted similar facilities in Ukraine since the start of the war, including its postal service and some electronics distributors.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyxlm877p2o
So it looks like people bought the chinese stuff to supply people on the front. Which kind of makes sense - when your husband is serving on the front, you might want to buy him a helmet or supplies for his drone and if that is available on your Amazon, that’s great.
That stuff being sold on their website doesn’t answer the proportionality question imo. Is it a significant of their business or does it supply a significant portion of the military demand?
The argument of whether it’s needed or not for civilian use is pointless. There are private individuals in the USA and UK who own whole ass main battle tanks just for the fun of it. There are enough people out there who want to buy the real combat thing for that reason…
I find it quite suprising that Ukraine hasn’t managed to present quantitative proof that the attacks on civilian warehouses are justified from a purely military perspective. It can’t be that hard to show that say 1+% of the products fall in the military/dual use category, right?
It doesn’t matter. It proofs that Wildberries has military stuff in their warehouses, which makes them military targets. In a dictatorship that wages war all of that is available to the war machine. To take your example: If you own a main battle tank in the UK or USA, that makes your home a totally valid target, because the state can and will totally impound your tank for the war effort.
If you own a main battle tank in the UK or USA, that makes your home a totally valid target, because the state can and will totally impound your tank for the war effort.
It, in fact, does not. Until the state actually impounds the tank or demonstrates intent that it will, the home with the tank is protected under international law.
I would generalize it a bit more to include likeliness of being used, but generally I agree with you.
That’s not how proportionality works. Following your reasoning, it would be fine to use a nuke on Moscow to take out Putin and the millions of deaths would be an acceptable side effect…
There is a difference between bombing a warehouse that is also used for military logistics and nuking Moscow. So I really do not feel that you are arguing in good faith here
On the other hand, it is fun to watch the ML users discover the sanctity lof consumer capitalism all of a sudden.
It’s refreshing to hear reasonable takes in a world where people are willing to accept any crime made by the faction they like if they do them against the faction they don’t like.
No room for nuance in a black and white world huh?
War threatening the lives and livelihoods of civilians is a bad thing.
Exactly. But since Russia is waging the war it started in a brutal way with no respect to any rules whatsoever, what do you expect? While Russia is indiscriminately bombing cities and civilians night after night, has massacred villages, abducted children, etc, do you really expect Ukraine to follow the rules its attacker isn’t? Russia turned this into a fight beyond the rules right from the start - it’s really hard for me to now shed tears over some burning warehouses.
Shit, I guess Russia should not have started this war then. Lives of so many civilians would not be threatened by it.
Yes that is true. Your point?
Um, obviously, @ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net meant that as the aggressor, Russia’s bringing it on themselves and could choose to stop the war at any time, so it’s not Ukraine’s problem. Why does that need to be spelled out?
Let’s put it this way: if the civilian victims of this attack are therefore influenced to also join Ukraine in telling the Russian tyrants to, “Dude, just stop attacking Ukraine already; we’re getting f@#$ed up here,” then that’s even good. Put on the pressure. Pull out all the stops. End it faster. Get everyone against the Russian gov, even if some deep collateral pain may be initially needed.
Affordability! Affor da bi lee tee! Is a new word!
Thems darn dumbocrats…with a B!
That’s awesome.
We love to see it folks!
There is still beauty in the world
