Goods on major Russian e-commerce platforms like Wildberries and Ozon have increased in price by up to 30% following extensive Ukrainian drone strikes on logistics facilities.
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.
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
I think you’re not understanding the point I’m making which is that it’s up to Ukraine to show that there indeed is a difference between the two cases. If only a few shelves in the warehouse are for potential military use then it might come awefully close to the nuking Moscow example. If half the warehouse is for military use, it’s obviously a valid target.
Again, αfaik it’s currently unclear how close reality is to either of those extremes and it’s up to Ukraine to elaborate on that.
Dude, they had a “everything for special military operation” category on their fucking website full of military stuff. You still can find military stuff being sold from them. Ukraine has nothing more to prove here
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.
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.
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
I think you’re not understanding the point I’m making which is that it’s up to Ukraine to show that there indeed is a difference between the two cases. If only a few shelves in the warehouse are for potential military use then it might come awefully close to the nuking Moscow example. If half the warehouse is for military use, it’s obviously a valid target.
Again, αfaik it’s currently unclear how close reality is to either of those extremes and it’s up to Ukraine to elaborate on that.
Dude, they had a “everything for special military operation” category on their fucking website full of military stuff. You still can find military stuff being sold from them. Ukraine has nothing more to prove here
https://militarnyi.com/en/news/wildberries-removes-svo-tag-drone-attacks/
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.