Sometimes it’s hard to know an individual’s or entity’s true intent based on what’s said or done. The whole notion of “lying” being a deliberate act of specific intent, whereas we’ll give the benefit of the doubt should someone one have misspoke or been misinformed.
“The fog of war” is the benefit of the doubt writ large. In war it’s expected that military force will be directed against military force; as a species, that’s something we’ve accepted and come to expect. It’s the definition we are willing to live with. And when, in “the fog of war,” a missile hits a hospital or school, we are aghast but also question if it was a deliberate act outside the norms of war. Technology fails — it happens all the time — so maybe something went wrong and this was a tragic but unintended event.
If the enemy had said in advance that they were going to target that hospital or school, there would be no question of intent or purpose when the missile strikes. It wouldn’t be an accident in the midst of war. It would be a deliberate act outside the norms of war, and that would make it a war crime.
Which brings me back to the train station at Kramatorsk, which was hit by a missile the other day. People waiting for an evacuation train were killed and injured. A tragedy, but was it deliberate? Given Russia’s actions throughout Ukraine during this war, it’s a safe assumption that it was, but there would still be the possibility that this was a missile gone astray and that the civilians at the train station wasn’t the deliberate target. Except it was, because they told us in advance they were going to target civilians.
Here’s a photo of one of the two missiles that struck Kramatorsk; the BBC has some additional angles on it in the video found at this article. The writing on the missile is “за дете!” — or about; it’s hard to read the last character, but the first part is quite clear. That’s Russian and it means “for the children!” That was written on the missile before it was fired. Although Russia has repeatedly denied targeting civilians, when you sign your handiwork, you erase all doubt.
(Just a little addendum here to note that Russia originally took credit for the the attack until the blowback started, and then they viciously backpedaled. The US Military says that there was no doubt that Russia fired the missile. This sounded to me to be almost an exact copy of what happened in 2015 with the shooting of MH17. The Russians, a la “separatists,” initially claimed credit, but when it became clear from the international backlash that they had screwed up, the denials were deafening and utterly unbelievable. Same playbook for the train station, just a different atrocity.)
I tend to look on thing s like this with a cooler and analytical eye. Of course, Putin started the war based on his own fears and ambitions. With that he validated why former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact members joined NATO, and justified why Ukraine would want to join, and has incentivized Finland to petition for membership now. With Putin’s war (he starts it, he owns it principle) there are going to be civilian casualties when strategic targets are hit. The U.N. War Crimes tribunal understands this and thus creates the functional requirement for documentation.
Often the validity of a strategic target is plain. The aircraft repair facility at the Lviv airport was just as valid a target as German aircraft factories 75 years ago. Sometimes the strategic value of a target is lost in propaganda, such as Guernica and Dresden.
This brings me to the missile strike against the train station in Kramatorsk. The fact that civilians were killed does not make this a war crime. What makes, or would make it, a war crime is that it is not (to my knowledge) a valid strategic target. The Ukrainian military has not be using rail to move troops, equipment or supplies. For obvious reasons, using rail for military movements near a conflict zone is a very bad idea.
All that said, let’s start from the position that the missile strike on the train station was justified and that we had an immediately negative gut reaction (putting that mildly). What should the Russian response be? Russian has it’s strategic reconnaissance assets, just like every major world power. The western powers would release pictures. As in, see the train station, here is equipment being staged, here is a train with military equipment being unloaded, things like that. What did Russia, steered by Putin’s office, have to say about it? That it is a Ukrainian propaganda plot, you should buy into a conspiracy theory.
So what is point of my little lecture? I do not disagree with being outraged, revolted and discussed by any despicable action by anyone, we should be. The problem though has become, we forget to look upon such things with a critical eye. I am all in favor of hanging Putin “from a sour apple tree.” I am saying, let’s hang him for his crimes, not for our outrage.
As an academic argument, I would agree with your comment. But in context, no. If you are conducting a campaign where you are targeting military structures and infrastructure, why would you inscribe a missile with “Here’s one for the kids!”? As I wrote in my post, that would seem to indicate specific intent. And given Russia’s pattern over the past weeks of specifically targeting civilian structures, like schools and hospitals, the fact that they for once hit a structure that could be used by military forces — despite the lack of evidence that it was being used by military forces — should not be taken out of the broader context of their actions.
I have no comment on motivation. I have made no comment on cruelty. There has be evidence enough of that in the past month. The Russian media has be describing the war as a crusade against Fascism. For all we know, some junior officer got a paint can and made a wish for his children. What is written on the missile is circumstantial. Where the missile was directed is evidence. So far as I know the Ukrainians are not hiding military support workshops next to hospitals, schools and churches, or in residential areas (like Saddam Hussein did).
What makes this incident, and several others, a potential war crime is there does not appear to be a valid strategic or tactical target in the vicinity. If the Ukrainians had been assembling land mines down the block, the Russians could say they were shooting at that and missed. That would potentially be a valid argument. It is also not what they said. The Russians said it was a Ukrainian plot to make them look bad. Really now…
Your response points to your outrage. I don’t disagree with your feelings, and certainly not V’s. What I am saying is that news, analysis and editorializing need to be kept distinct. Lestwise there will only be a game of opinion. I for one would like to keep the argument solid. We one is going to claim war crimes, or any other crime, the argument must be solid, regardless of our feelings and speculations. I think that Russia turned toward terrorism, but what I think of their strategy is irrelevant, what they do with it is.
What are you even trying to say? “I have no comment on motivation.” The point of this post was motivation. If you have no comment, what are you doing? If you want to make a cogent argument that a “dedicated” missile sent to a passenger train station does not indicate motivation, please do so. Moreover, any merging of “news, analysis and editorializing” is happening in your mind. I’ve made no claims about what this blog is or is trying to be. I’m doing this because it’s an easier and more efficient means of keeping family and friends in the loop. If you find that confusing, you are not obligated to read.
I understand the terrorism to the act of making war upon civilians to affect political change. This has often become the option of those unable to achieve their objectives in military conflict. The process of terrorism by by military forces was described by Giulio Douhet in his strategic bombing theory. The appoint of Aleksandr Dvornikov to C-in-C of the war in Ukraine is troubling. Dvornikov is an apparent follower of Douhet’s theory, and is seen as having successful applied it in Syria. While Douhet’s position has largely been disproven, the cost of that path has been high. (Look at London, Hamburg, Coventry, Cologne and Berlin.) With a general who sees military terrorism as effective, I fear the worst is yet to come.