In this article I want to consider the question: Who is to blame for destruction of Ukrainian cities?
This question can be partially answered by finding out who is to blame for the Ukrainian crisis in general; see the thread Has the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine been provoked?
But it is also necessary to note the following.
In Western media you can often see photographs of destroyed residential areas of Ukrainian cities, but these media do not tell you that it was the Ukrainian government that made the decision to fight exactly in the residential areas.
For example, it was decided to fight this way in Mariupol, Bakhmut, and now in Chasiv Yar.
And on the contrary, in March 2022, the Ukrainian army left the Ukrainian Oblast Capital Kherson without a fight - an Oblast is the largest administrative unit of Ukraine. Probably, the decision not to fight inside the residential areas of Kherson was made exactly because the Ukrainian authorities decided not to destroy the Oblast Capital.
Later in November 2022, when Ukrainian troops approached Kherson during their counteroffensive, the Russian army too did not fight in residential areas and just left the city. Therefore, Kherson was not destroyed.
If you search “destroyed Kherson” on Google Images, you will see only pictures of destroyed individual houses, photographed in close-up to make it difficult to see that the surrounding houses are intact.
During World War II, the French capital Paris had a similar story. French troops had left the city without a fight in June 1940 even before France surrendered.
Now let's return to the destruction of Ukrainian cities.
A search for “destroyed Mariupol” or “destroyed Bakhmut” will return images of entire residential areas destroyed. They are destroyed because the Ukrainian army fought inside these areas until Russian troops knocked Ukrainians out. To do this, the Russian army had to storm every house, suffering heavy losses.
Of course, hiding behind residential houses is much easier for the Ukrainian military than fighting in a field. And for Western media, a picture of destroyed entire streets is much more impressive than photographs of destroyed individual houses.
But how legal is it to use civilian objects for defense of troops?
Please read below paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 58 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions – this Protocol was adopted in 1977.
In Western media you can often see photographs of destroyed residential areas of Ukrainian cities, but these media do not tell you that it was the Ukrainian government that made the decision to fight exactly in the residential areas.
For example, it was decided to fight this way in Mariupol, Bakhmut, and now in Chasiv Yar.
And on the contrary, in March 2022, the Ukrainian army left the Ukrainian Oblast Capital Kherson without a fight - an Oblast is the largest administrative unit of Ukraine. Probably, the decision not to fight inside the residential areas of Kherson was made exactly because the Ukrainian authorities decided not to destroy the Oblast Capital.
Later in November 2022, when Ukrainian troops approached Kherson during their counteroffensive, the Russian army too did not fight in residential areas and just left the city. Therefore, Kherson was not destroyed.
If you search “destroyed Kherson” on Google Images, you will see only pictures of destroyed individual houses, photographed in close-up to make it difficult to see that the surrounding houses are intact.
During World War II, the French capital Paris had a similar story. French troops had left the city without a fight in June 1940 even before France surrendered.
Now let's return to the destruction of Ukrainian cities.
A search for “destroyed Mariupol” or “destroyed Bakhmut” will return images of entire residential areas destroyed. They are destroyed because the Ukrainian army fought inside these areas until Russian troops knocked Ukrainians out. To do this, the Russian army had to storm every house, suffering heavy losses.
Of course, hiding behind residential houses is much easier for the Ukrainian military than fighting in a field. And for Western media, a picture of destroyed entire streets is much more impressive than photographs of destroyed individual houses.
But how legal is it to use civilian objects for defense of troops?
Please read below paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 58 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions – this Protocol was adopted in 1977.
see the official website of the International Committee of the Red Cross
Therefore, we can conclude that the use of residential areas by the Ukrainian troops as their shelter is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, since these areas are civilian objects.
However, the Western media never reports this to the Western public. Instead, Western media reports constantly tell about destroyed residential houses in Ukraine and about civilian casualties there.
Source
Therefore, we can conclude that the use of residential areas by the Ukrainian troops as their shelter is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, since these areas are civilian objects.
However, the Western media never reports this to the Western public. Instead, Western media reports constantly tell about destroyed residential houses in Ukraine and about civilian casualties there.
Source
Last edited:
Chechen whore
