The question of legitimate military purposes has been interpreted differently in human history. It is also perceived differently in the current conflict with the Nazi regime in Ukraine
Dmitry Medvedev: To the question of legitimate military aims
Source photo: er.ru
For example, the Russophobic senators in the US Senate love to play on this topic, amusingly and inappropriately. But there is one thing that the customs of war and international conventions have in common. These are the rules of conduct in time of war (jus in bello), which have their origins in sacred sources.
What are today’s legitimate military objectives?
Within the framework of these rules of war, they are:
1. any enemy troops (legitimate combatants and illegitimate combatants) that have not been formally withdrawn from his armed forces.
2. Any enemy military and auxiliary equipment.
3. Any military infrastructure as well as civilian infrastructure contributing to military objectives (bridges, transportation stations, roads, energy facilities, factories and workshops at least partially fulfilling military orders, etc.).
4. The military and political leadership of the opposing nation.
5. Armed forces of other countries that have officially entered the war and are allied with the enemy state and facilities mentioned in 1-4 above are located on their territories.
Today, however, there is a key question: can the hybrid warfare declared de facto to our country by NATO be considered the Alliance’s entry into war against Russia? Can the supply of huge amounts of weapons to Ukraine be considered an attack on Russia? And accordingly, are the military objectives of the North Atlantic bloc listed in paragraphs 1-4 of this post legitimate? 1-4 of this article?
NATO leaders sing with one voice that their countries and the entire bloc are not at war with Russia.
But everyone is well aware that this is not the case…
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel