Comments by "D. San" (@DSan-kl2yc) on "Ukraine appeals for more air defense support | DW News" video.

It can be a war crime. It's by how much it affects people versus what it does. If the expert thinks it's retaliatory then it is a war crime. Because it's just to make the populace suffer.
2
It can be a war crime. If it isn't a proper target, and affects people. In that quote it was for a few hours, and the hospitals and other such had back up generators and hadn't been targeted. The country hadn't been deprived of resources ect. And it was still controversial. The few hours is important. NATO didn't try to destroy the critical infrastructure. Russia is. It's trying to shut it down permanently. Or for longer. Which puts civilians in great danger. The intent could also be to cause civilian suffering. "NATO officials emphasized that allied planes had not destroyed the installations. Instead, they dropped "soft bombs" that spewed strands of carbon, short-circuiting the electrical transmission equipment." "Diplomats also indicated that they wanted to limit the effect on civilians. Because Yugoslavia provides power to neighboring countries, NATO also does not want to completely disable it, according to NATO's military spokesman, German Maj. Gen. Walter Jertz."
1
 @et2709 Russia has been doing this since the beginning. What short memory you have. You can find 2022 articles on Russia doing this exact thing.
1
 user-yg5hl7gr7j Crimea has water. They stopped subsidizing a territory Russia stole. They were giving them extra water essentially. And they stopped that.
1
@petermomanyi529 It definitely wouldn't be if it's a product to be sold to another country. Anyway Ukraine's strikes are too focused, and too limited, to affect the civilian population. And the affect on the civilian population is what makes it a war crime or not. Whether the attacks are militarily sound or not. It isn't a carte blanche to strike all of them all the time.
1
user-yg5hl7gr7j the territory has plenty of water. I already went over that. You guys are trying to hit buzzwords without context. That water was for commercial use. The people weren't deprived of any necessity. Why would they do that for Russia instead of forcing the Russians to do it themselves. Be like paying the phone bill for a stolen phone or credit card.
1
user-yg5hl7gr7j I'm amazed you can respond because you must obviously be blind. The citizens didn't rely on that water. Crimea has enough water. I'm glad you understand that crimeans are citizens of Ukraine though. But the people responsible are the occupiers, it's their obligation and they'd benefit. it doesn't make sense to support the occupiers financially.
1
Tit for tat doesn't mean they did the same thing. Ukraine struck oil facilities. The context of each is different too.
1
 @uchennaabosi7651 stop it. This is a conflict where one party is completely and totally in the wrong. Disagreements shouldn't result in violence.
1
It can always be a war crime..that's why NATO had to be cautious and go around telling people about how cautious they were. There's criteria when it isn't a war crime, and when it is. If you do it just because, to harass a country, then it's a war crime. If it affects a lot of civilians, and you're trying to inflict damage on them, and suffering, then it's a war crime. NATO constantly stressed and made sure the damage wasn't going to destroy their electrical grid. Also you can find articles from last year when Russia was doing this. So this isn't a first time thing. But a sustained thing. One that maybe doesn't have any military advantage, which would make it a war crime. That's for experts to decide eventually.
1
@yelenashishkina8804 no, that's not what I said. I answered your question. And ended with "that's for experts to decide". You can pretend otherwise, and be ignorant. Don't pretend you're asking a question or trying to understand when you aren't. NATO nor the US have anything to do with Gaza. And NATO nor the US are doing strikes in Russia. NATO isn't even calling this anything.
1