I’m not arguing for the use of land mines here (too destructive to civilians), but what’s your argument for the following?
It’s imperative that they stick to it [the treaty]
Sincere question, why? They’re being invaded by an enemy that does not accept surrender / treat POWs properly (or even as humans), and which frequently commits atrocities on civilian populations in occupied areas. Even if you accept that some conduct is unacceptable even in defense of one’s home, what about when you know the invaders are going to rape, torture, and kill women and children?
Why do they need to follow “the rules”? Or ANY rules? What’s worse than what is being inflicted on their innocent people?
deleted by creator
Why?
I’m not arguing for the use of land mines here (too destructive to civilians), but what’s your argument for the following?
Sincere question, why? They’re being invaded by an enemy that does not accept surrender / treat POWs properly (or even as humans), and which frequently commits atrocities on civilian populations in occupied areas. Even if you accept that some conduct is unacceptable even in defense of one’s home, what about when you know the invaders are going to rape, torture, and kill women and children?
Why do they need to follow “the rules”? Or ANY rules? What’s worse than what is being inflicted on their innocent people?
Letting Russia win introduces continuous genocide and forced conscription for war against EU states issue. Pick your poison.
deleted by creator
Problem is, the first half of your statement is dependent on the latter half. That’s not a choice for Ukraine, but a fallback strategy.