Europe

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?

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.