Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Soloist]

https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2022/ ... ntral-kyiv

Mall that was bombed
https://www.usatoday.com/picture-galler ... 118085001/

No mention of military equipment in these articles above

He also urged residents not to film and share videos “of the movement of military equipment, checkpoints, strategic objects”.

https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/15 ... 4906768386 a view of the Grab launchers at the bombed mall.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tiktoke ... ed-2022-3?

On Sunday, Russian forces struck a shopping mall on the northwestern outskirts of Kyiv, killing eight people, Reuters reported. The day after, the Security Service of Ukraine posted a video of the man apologizing.

"A TikToker recently posted on the internet about the location of the Ukrainian military in Kyiv," the Security Service said.

It continued: "Later, the shopping center, where our defenders were, was subjected to a powerful missile strike by the Russian occupiers.

The actual missile strike along with Russian footage to show their propaganda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqEyUH2doEw

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2022 ... r-mariupol

Firefighters pulled at least one man covered in dust from the twisted debris, according to more video released by the emergency services.
Soldiers cordoned off the site and told journalists to move back, warning of danger from unexploded munitions without elaborating further.
Neighbours in a housing block whose windows were shattered by the blast said that they had seen a mobile rocket launcher near the mall for several days previously.

Who's spin is correct? did the Russians bomb a civilian target? or a military target?

[Bootstrap]

One of the things I struggle with in this conversation is the assumption that since the nations are not under the same moral mandates as individual Christians, then there are no expectations about morality for them.

That makes no sense to me. Christianity is not the only source of morality in the world. There are secular sources of morality, even during war (such as the Geneva Convention which dictates how prisoners and civilians and other international law). To wave it away and say that none of that matters is deeply cynical and not really a world I want to live in.

God's judgment of oppression and violence is a major, major theme in the Bible.

Psalm 82
A psalm of Asaph.

God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

“How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.

[Bootstrap]

Who's spin is correct? did the Russians bomb a civilian target? or a military target?

If you take this approach, there is no longer anything you can call a civilian target.

Here's a summary of the Geneva Conventions from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Russians don't seem to be even pretending to follow the Geneva Conventions. Both Russia and Ukraine are signatories to the Geneva Conventions.

If armed forces are using a hospital or school as a base to launch attacks or store weapons, are those places then a legitimate military target?

The laws of war prohibit direct attacks on civilian objects, like schools. They also prohibit direct attacks against hospitals and medical staff, which are specially protected under IHL. That said, a hospital or school may become a legitimate military target if it contributes to specific military operations of the enemy and if its destruction offers a definite military advantage for the attacking side.

If there is any doubt, they cannot be attacked. Hospitals only lose their protection in certain circumstances - for example if a hospital is being used as a base from which to launch an attack, as a weapons depot, or to hide healthy soldiers/fighters. And there are certain conditions too.

Before a party to a conflict can respond to such acts by attacking, it has to give a warning, with a time limit, and the other party has to have ignored that warning. Some States have endorsed the Safe Schools Declaration and Guidelines, which aim to reduce the military use of schools.

[Bootstrap]

Geneva Convetions on Siege:

What are the rules on sieges?

Sieges often have grave consequences for large numbers of civilians. In order to protect civilians, there are important rules in IHL. Crucially, civilians must be allowed to evacuate from a besieged area. Neither the besieging force nor the force under siege may force them to remain against their will.

Sieges may only be directed exclusively against an enemy's armed forces and it is absolutely prohibited to shoot or attack civilians fleeing a besieged area. In addition, parties must comply with all the rules governing the conduct of hostilities. Constant care must be taken to spare civilians when putting a city under siege and attacking military objectives in the besieged area.

All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid or minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. IHL also prohibits starving the civilian population as a method of warfare. At the same time, although temporary evacuations may be necessary, and even legally required, sieges must not be used to compel civilians to permanently leave an area.

If civilians become displaced (because they flee or are evacuated from a besieged area), all possible measures must be taken to ensure that the people in question have adequate shelter, have access to sufficient food, hygiene facilities and health-care provision and are kept safe (including from sexual and gender-based violence), and that members of the same family are not separated. Interested in more details? See our 2019 IHL and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts report, pp 23 to 25.

[Soloist]

Boot, who actually follows the conventions? Can you name a single country?

If you take this approach, there is no longer anything you can call a civilian target.

Here's a summary of the Geneva Conventions from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Russians don't seem to be even pretending to follow the Geneva Conventions. Both Russia and Ukraine are signatories to the Geneva Conventions.

If armed forces are using a hospital or school as a base to launch attacks or store weapons, are those places then a legitimate military target?

The laws of war prohibit direct attacks on civilian objects, like schools. They also prohibit direct attacks against hospitals and medical staff, which are specially protected under IHL. That said, a hospital or school may become a legitimate military target if it contributes to specific military operations of the enemy and if its destruction offers a definite military advantage for the attacking side.

If there is any doubt, they cannot be attacked. Hospitals only lose their protection in certain circumstances - for example if a hospital is being used as a base from which to launch an attack, as a weapons depot, or to hide healthy soldiers/fighters. And there are certain conditions too.

Before a party to a conflict can respond to such acts by attacking, it has to give a warning, with a time limit, and the other party has to have ignored that warning. Some States have endorsed the Safe Schools Declaration and Guidelines, which aim to reduce the military use of schools.

That is the same approach that our government used and no, we never give a warning for the attacks either. As for following the conventions... name one country that actually follows the Geneva conventions?
These ideals of war, are stupid and they always have been. There is no such thing as a "civil" war and there never will be. War crimes and civilian collateral damage will always be there regardless of the who the "good" guys are.

Edit: that same organization was asked to look into the war crimes the US did when they bombed a hospital. Anything happen? no of course not. The only way anything they do matters is if a bigger country decides it matters.

Also, that quote you have is a very modern interpretation of the conventions which was originally signed, not the actual conventions themselves.

Please look at the actual conventions, not an interpretation of them.

Either way, this is all a bunny trail, the point I was making was propaganda goes both ways and we would be wise to remember.

I will also leave this here https://www.justsecurity.org/33712/mili ... tly-blame/

[temporal1]

Josh:
What standard of ethics leads you to believe a “sovereign country” is worthwhile of fighting for?

The NYT.

I continue to contend that it is very difficult to condemn unprovoked invasion on a Biblical basis. No one seems to want to discuss this though. Maybe because it presents a problem for establishing moral superiority.

I think it's easy. Jesus said "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you. I cannot see how any rational person could believe that an unprovoked invasion constitutes obedience to this teaching.

But fighting back because you think you were invaded doesn’t constitute obedience to this teaching either.
That’s the crux here.

It’s the crux for Ukraine.

But Ukraine wasn’t left alone to decide.
Every response from Ukraine has been based on promises+instructions from outsiders. And obligations to outsiders.
Where is scriptural basis for stepping into someone else’s war and playing God? For escalating war, physically, economically, and thru rhetoric? Honest question.

Russia believes it was provoked. Some actual experienced diplomats+historians find basis for this.
The lion’s share of sentiment is black+white, Putin evil, the West blameless, and justified.

Which doesn’t surprise in the world. It surprises on this forum.

In former times, many believed, “Our country, right or wrong!”
The U.S. is still very young. Many have matured a bit since then. And, real time proof of U.S. wrong has happened.
So, this isn’t much recited any longer.

Whether Putin is right or wrong about provocation, diplomats would have to begin with acknowledgement of their position, then work to determine what can+should be done to move forward. It would be ideal to prove+convince Putin he was wrong, at that time, deescalation could begin. (Could the West prove they did not provoke?) Are they afraid they cannot?

One thing the West has+is proving, they are masters of flamboyant rhetoric, now armed with law school degrees.
Maybe it took wings when employing language like, “War on Poverty,” and subsequent “Wars??”

i recall that, because, as a teen, i didn’t see how this could be bad. My father was highly offended at the trivialized use of such a powerful, hated, feared word. i had to respect him for that. i expected he was correct.

It’s all gotten so much worse since then. Political hyperbole. Flamboyant political language.
At this time, in Ukrraine, flamboyant language is critically dangerous.

When it comes to war, caution should be employed to “not paint yourself into a corner.”

[Neto]

Ken S., as I understand him, Nett is looking at this with a strict separation between what is addressed to believers (as for example your quote), and what might have been addressed to secular entities, specifically nations. So in a way these injunctions given to us as believers provide no clarity for what a nation might be told.

Thank you for actually understanding what I'm saying.

I think, however, that the injunctions given to believers express the will of God for mankind, and as such, they may be considered as an expression of the kind of morality that God wants (and expects) even non-believers and secular nations to abide by. We can see all throughout the OT story that God judges the wicked actions of non-believing ethnic groups or nations, even when he uses those evil actions to correct his own people.

I have a hard reconciling God commanding Israel to wipe nations off the face of the earth with the view you're expressing here. Most on this forum would condemn Israel following God's command as war crimes, illegal, and atrocities.

There is no change to the biblical mandate for nations in the new covenant, the new covenant only changes things for the followers of Christ, and I don't really think nations can follow Christ, since following Christ means abdicating the use of force, which would make any nation immediately cease to exist.

I do there is a biblical case to be made that we shouldn't be swayed by every sensational media report that comes out though...

You very well may not agree, but my understanding is that since God ordered these actions, the Israelites were acting as his agents for judgement. (There were also cases in which they did the same sort of thing, but without God's command, and they were judged for it.) As I understand the difference between the OT & NT eras, the nation of Israel was the kingdom of God on earth, in a physical national form. When they acted in obedience to God, these acts of violence were God's judgement being carried out. But Jesus testified (before Pilate) that "Now my kingdom is not of this world", and in many ways that changed everything.
[In regards to the future, a question remains in my mind, as to whether the "saints of God" (literally "the holys") will be a part of the "Armies of God" which will come down to earth in the final war of judgement. This term sometimes denotes the angelic forces, and sometimes the saints. So I do not claim to know, but I think that it is possible that when the kingdom comes to earth in a physical way, there may again be this connection between the kingdom as we experience and live in it now, and the way it was in the OT era. Of course if a person is an amillinealist, then this question "does not compute" at all.]

[temporal1]

Neto:
.. But Jesus testified (before Pilate) that "Now my kingdom is not of this world", and in many ways that changed everything. ..

It’s fascinating on every level, but Pilate remained ultimately threatened. He did not believe.
Jesus mourned but accepted Pilate’s disbelief.

[GaryK]

I think it's easy. Jesus said "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you. I cannot see how any rational person could believe that an unprovoked invasion constitutes obedience to this teaching.

Ken S., as I understand him, Nett is looking at this with a strict separation between what is addressed to believers (as for example your quote), and what might have been addressed to secular entities, specifically nations. So in a way these injunctions given to us as believers provide no clarity for what a nation might be told.

I think, however, that the injunctions given to believers express the will of God for mankind, and as such, they may be considered as an expression of the kind of morality that God wants (and expects) even non-believers and secular nations to abide by. We can see all throughout the OT story that God judges the wicked actions of non-believing ethnic groups or nations, even when he uses those evil actions to correct his own people.

Exactly.
There seems to be an idea among some that God has two sets of requirements. Something along the lines of "If you believe in Me and are willing to obey Me, I want you to love and forgive your enemies. If you don't believe in Me and are unwilling to obey me, I want you to fight to the death for your rights and freedoms." This cannot be true.

I think I would word it like this - "If you don't believe in Me and are unwilling to obey me, your sinful nature will compel you to fight to the death for your rights and freedoms." If the view is that God wants secular people to fight, I strongly disagree. God wants all people to come to repentance, including folks like Putin and other leaders.

[Ernie]

We believe and confess that God has ordained power and authority, and set them to punish the evil, and protect the good, to govern the world, and maintain countries and cities, with their subjects, in good order and regulation; and that we, therefore, may not despise, revile, or resist the same, but must acknowledge and honor them as the ministers of God, and be subject and obedient unto them, yea, ready for all good works, especially in that which is not contrary to the law, will, and commandment of God; also faithfully pay custom, tribute, and taxes, and to render unto them their dues, even also as the Son of God taught and practiced, and commanded His disciples to do; that we, moreover, must constantly and earnestly pray to the Lord for them and their welfare, and for the prosperity of the country, that we may dwell under its protection, earn our livelihood, and lead a quiet, peaceable life, with all godliness and honesty; and, furthermore, that the Lord would recompense unto them, here, and afterwards in eternity, all benefits, liberty, and favor which we enjoy here under their praiseworthy administration. Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:17; Matthew 22:21; Matthew 17:27; 1 Timothy 2:1.

Article 13 Dordrecht Confession

Would you agree or disagree with this?

Very interesting. I wonder if this has anything to do with the Amish view of politics.

I personally do not know what God will do for those in government who treat citizens good vs. bad.

I believe that God calls all people to a higher standard of life and conduct and that some people who do not yield to that calling will get more stripes than others.