> I know emotions are running high in this thread but asking to educate myself.

I hope You would learn something from today's message by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine on situation where few Ukrainian kindergartens shelled by Russian rocket strikes:

> Today’s Russian attacks on a kindergarten and an orphanage are war crimes and violations of the Rome Statute. Together with the General Prosecutor’s Office we are collecting this and other facts, which we will immediately send to the Hague. Responsibility is inevitable.[0]

N.B. I'm Ukrainian living in Ukraine. Here is my statement for HN:[1]

[0] https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1497186665156255754

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30395897

As horrific as that is, that sort of stuff happens in wars all the time. It's so common that it even has its own fancy word to make it sound less horrific: collateral damage. That said, unless Russia was intentionally targeting the kindergarten (and/or the Russians didn't reasonably believe the kindergarten to be housing enemy troops at the time) I don't really see how that can be treated as a war crime.

For the record I think Russia's invasion is morally wrong and unjustified.

> As horrific as that is, that sort of stuff happens in wars all the time.

But when it happens in your country, your city, even your home...

I just wish You to not meet war eye-to-eye.

I'm actually looking into war's eyes directly.

The invasion itself may well be a war crime too (though there are gray areas and Russia has been trying to present itself as on the right side of those lines):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

History will not look kindly on people like you defending the actions of Russia.

What actions exactly have I defended? Awful, horrific shit on scales beyond our comprehension have happened in basically every war in human history, including the deaths of countless innocent civilians. But to count as a war crime, the deaths of civilians has to be intentional (or at least with some level of reckless disregard for the safety of civilians, the standards of proof for which would be extremely high in a war). I've seen no evidence put forward yet that the kindergarten that got shelled was shelled intentionally.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is morally wrong (and as a sibling comment pointed out, the invasion itself may be a war crime). Deaths of civilians caused by Russia's invasion are not inherently war crimes in and of themselves. It's not like felony murder, where any death caused in the commission of a felony is instantly treated as a murder. Civilian deaths caused by a war of aggression are not inherently war crimes.

Are you willing to feel the same anger and hate that you feel towards Russia towards virtually every other nation that has ever existed in human history? Because otherwise, you're "defending" them in the same way I'm "defending" Russia because mass deaths of civilians happens in basically every single war.

Oh no! I am against any Russian aggression and the atrocities they are committing. This is terrible. Please understand that I am only trying to understand the approach that organization was taking with the charity, never questioning how evil Putin is or that he needs to be held accountable.

> I am only trying to understand

I just hope you would be able to understand feeling of Ukrainian 14-year-old girl, killed by Russian missile yesterday on the street of Uman city, Cherkasy region, Ukraine.[0]

[0] https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1497242681981882371

> Ukraine is not a tiny nation, and Russia is huge.

The Vietnamese successfully fought off multiple foreign invaders over past centuries against armies more powerful and advanced than theirs.

With the stipulation that there were some punches the USA wasn’t willing to throw. Russia has seen this and Russia has seen Aleppo.

Russia committing to this means that they are okay with doing what they need to for a decisive and quick victory.

This.

The US is certainly no saint in combat. However I will say it is arguably much more sensitive towards at least trying to avoid collateral damage. Russia, and autocracies in general, are probably much more willing to inflict total war because they simply do not have to be as accountable to their publics as a democratic government.

> Ukraine is not a tiny nation, and Russia is huge.

The US, the most well-funded army in the world for the past generation, hasn't won a war since the end of WW2. Army size and the like does not matter. The Ukranian forces can entrench themselves and maintain a guerilla war for a long time, as long as they have supplies.

I strongly feel like wars are unwinnable. It either ends up in a stalemate and attrition - see the US trying to do a thing in the middle east for two decades only for things to go back the second they leave - or MAD. And the last one hasn't and will hopefully never happen.

>The US, the most well-funded army in the world for the past generation, hasn't won a war since the end of WW2.

That depends on the definition of winning. In many cases, US military won everything militarily, but lost politically.

I mean, is Iraq even a loss politically?

The US thoroughly rolled the Iraqi military, killed over 1 million Iraqis, overthrew their government, and installed a new government in Iraq that still exists today.

To say this is a "loss" leaves us at a place where the term has no meaning.

Yes, because it required 20 years of active occupation, numerous offensives, and trillions of dollars and it's unlikely that the result will last.

While we fucked around in the middle east, Russia regained strength and China emerged as a peer world power. Does anyone want to bet that Iraq or Afghanistan will remain our loyal ally in this new multipolar world?

We're now $30T in debt with a 125% debt-to-GDP ratio. All of our allies are completely emasculated by 70+ years of U.S. hegemony. And no one has an appetite for war on ideological grounds when we lied about all the past wars and protestors are getting trampled by horses and un-personed from the financial system without due process in a 'liberal' western democracy.

Strategically speaking, you can win a battle but lose the war. It was an absolute loss from that perspective.

> Yes, because it required 20 years of active occupation, numerous offensives, and trillions of dollars and it's unlikely that the result will last.

By that logic, the Germans lost the Franco-Prussian War because they subsequently lost the First World War.

Killing over 1 million Iraqis, most of them civilians, counts as a "win"?

The war massively damaged the US government's credibility, both domestically and internationally, cost the US ~$2T, and did little to stabilize the region; one might be able to argue that it destabilized it, in fact. The US won a military victory in Iraq, but emerged worse off on the whole as a result.

If wars have either winners, losers, or ties, the Iraqis definitely were the "losers" of the invasion of Iraq by the US. This isn't intended to be a moral value judgement on the slaughter of the 1 million Iraqis in the process.

>> The US, the most well-funded army in the world for the past generation, hasn't won a war since the end of WW2.

> That depends on the definition of winning. In many cases, US military won everything militarily, but lost politically.

This. It also really, really depends on definitions. Did the US win the Korean war because South Korea still exists, or lose because North Korea still exists?

> Did the US win the Korean war because South Korea still exists, or lose because North Korea still exists?

Neither, the Korean war never officially ended.

>The US, the most well-funded army in the world for the past generation, hasn't won a war since the end of WW2.

The First Gulf War was a pretty decisive victory. Also Grenada.

> I strongly feel like wars are unwinnable.

I think wars are winnable. It is technically possible for the US (or Russia, China) to annihilate their opponent.

The bigger question is: what follows?

Let's say that NATO got involved and retaliated. Somehow Putin gets handcuffed and sent to prison or otherwise is removed from office.

What then? A HUGE power vacuum in Russia that will be filled by... another ex-KGB officer? A Russian oligarch? A freely-elected politician?

Russia can destroy and invade the country. But occupying a place as huge as Ukraine will be hard. Even with a small set of weapons and fighters defending the territory you can make the place way more difficult to control than it would be otherwise.

I expect they’ll have a pretty easy time in the places dominated by ethnic Russians who welcome Russian rule. I further expect they’ll have a considerably harder time in the non-Russian areas.

The USSR brought Ukraine under control after WW II.

I am very much rooting for Ukraine, but at the same time feel there is little anyone short of another peer superpower can do to stop the Russian juggernaut from doing what Putin wants.