I wonder how much can we even talk about collateral damage when almost all the enemy civilians support an aggressive war. I get that they're non-combatants, but they're not innocents.

Especially when the "collateral damage" is in this case is "I can no longer buy iphone".

The more I get old, the more I notice that people’s opinions are not really their own, but are function of the nation’s medias. Can we blame people for their opinion?

Yes, ffs.

Free will and the self does not exist.

Edit: with this I only meant to say that it is unfair to judge or blame - policies still need to be enforced which is in line with the established consensus of moral philosophy.

That’s a non-sequitur. If free will in the strict philosophical sense doesn’t exist (and I believe it might not), then we need to judge and blame to influence the decision process of current and potential offenders.

Can we always blame people for their opinions?

Can we blame the mentally underdeveloped, like children?

Are you advocating punishing children for the rapes committed by adults?

Germany paid the war damages of WWI (1914-1918!) until the 1990ies. War damages hugely aggravated the economic crisis of 1932, leading to you-know-what; I’ve always been surprised that we didn’t take this as a lesson that punishing children for the faults of their parents was a double-edged idea. Imagine being 17 in 1934, having to pay and apologize for a war you never did, let alone a war that you could never have influenced or lobbied against.

I’m still torn about this approach. But OTOH, peace must be enforced and warmonging nations must be weakened until the lesson is learnt. And we equate citizen with their nation’s decisions.

In tge case of strategic bombing it's easy: Targeting of non-combatants in war is a war crime. As colleteral damage it still sucks, but it is not a crime.

That's where the buck stops, because definibg what a non-combatant is is easier then deciding who is "innocent".

Sanctions are trickier, I just fail to come with an alternative to them.

I’m curious what is your source for Russian civilians supporting the war?

My counter-point is that almost everyone from my friends, family and colleagues are upset about the war, and many left the country

Well, even if 100% of Russians, including the infants, supportrd the war it wouldn't change the fact that a potential strategic bombing campaign against Russian cities would be a war crime.

Civilians should not be dragged into it. Soldiers killing soldiers is one thing but civilians must not be dragged into it.

"but they're not innocents." ===> I'm wondering if those crazy bombers think the same as you do when killing/bombing "Civilians" instead or armed forces.

You logic was prevalent in feudal times. If someone attacked you, you'd wipe they whole city/area and their entire family tree just to make sure theree's nobody left to take revenge.

Imagine dropping a bomb on a shipping container of iPhones. What's the point? What objective does it serve? How does it contribute to the war effort?

Considering the cost of the bomb, I think the expected value is rather likely to be negative.

In videogame lingo, sanctions are a debuff. You won't see it working directly, but it very much contributes.

Contribute to what objective? How? How much? At what cost?

I think sanctions should be applied based on answers to these questions, not some vague idea that they'll be like a debuff in a video game.