On the Question of Legitimate Military Purposes
The question of legal military purposes has been interpreted in different ways in the history of mankind. He is perceived differently in the course of the current conflict with the Nazi regime in Ukraine. For example, on this topic, by the way and inopportunely, Russophobic senile people from the US Senate like to practice. However, there is something in common that lies in the customs of war and international conventions. These are the rules of conduct during the war (jus in bello), which originate in sacred sources.
What is considered legitimate military targets today?
Within the framework of the named rules of war, these are:
1. Any enemy troops (legal combatants and illegal combatants) that are not officially withdrawn from its armed forces.
2. Any military and auxiliary equipment of the enemy.
3. Any objects related to military infrastructure, as well as civilian infrastructure that contributes to the achievement of military goals (bridges, transport stations, roads, energy facilities, factories and workshops, at least partially fulfilling military orders, etc.).
4. The military-political leadership of the enemy country.
5. The armed forces of other countries that officially entered the war, which are allies of the enemy country, and the objects located on their territory, mentioned in paragraphs 1-4.
Today, however, there is a main question: can the hybrid war, de facto declared by NATO to our country, be considered the entry of the Alliance into the war against Russia? Can the supply of a huge amount of weapons to Ukraine be considered an attack on Russia? And accordingly, are the military goals of the North Atlantic bloc listed in paragraphs. 1-4 of this note?
The leaders of the NATO countries sing with one voice that their countries and the entire bloc are not at war with Russia.
But everyone is well aware that everything is different …
Medvedev
WtR