The distinction is not between civilian targets and military targets, it is between “civilian objects” and “military objectives”. Targeting a civilian infrastructure such as refineries, and even civilian power stations can be considered valid military objectives if they make an effective contribution to military action or offer a definite military advantage. The refineries being hit by Ukraine definitely meet that definition.
Just pointing out that what Ukraine does not attack is civilians or in your nomeclature “civilian objects”, but unlike what might be understood from the post I was responding to (because it used “civilian” rather than “civilians”), it does attack civilian infrastructure (when it is a “military objective”, as you pointed out).
Personally I think the attacks on Russian refineries should already been happenning for a long time and I find it’s a disgrace the limitations most European countries and the US placed on Ukranian use of the weapons they provided inside Russia.
Strategically it’s ridiculous that Ukraine has had to suffer its infrastructure and its Economy being destroyed whilst Russia needed not at all worry about having it’s productive and economic infrastructure degraded: since Putin doesn’t seem to care at all about human lives, until Ukraine finally made their own weapons with range enough to hit Russian Economic Targets and started targetting Russian refineries, this invasion of his had been almost risk-free.
Ah ok, I misinterpreted your post then. I thought you were insinuating that because refineries are civilian infrastructure Ukraine shouldn’t be targeting them. We’re in agreement here, don’t target actual civilians and slam as many drones as possible into refineries and any other valid targets within Russia.
Well they targetted civilian targets (the refineries) but have not targetted civilians (i.e. people).
The distinction is not between civilian targets and military targets, it is between “civilian objects” and “military objectives”. Targeting a civilian infrastructure such as refineries, and even civilian power stations can be considered valid military objectives if they make an effective contribution to military action or offer a definite military advantage. The refineries being hit by Ukraine definitely meet that definition.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/when-are-attacks-civilian-infrastructure-war-crimes-2022-12-16/
Just pointing out that what Ukraine does not attack is civilians or in your nomeclature “civilian objects”, but unlike what might be understood from the post I was responding to (because it used “civilian” rather than “civilians”), it does attack civilian infrastructure (when it is a “military objective”, as you pointed out).
Personally I think the attacks on Russian refineries should already been happenning for a long time and I find it’s a disgrace the limitations most European countries and the US placed on Ukranian use of the weapons they provided inside Russia. Strategically it’s ridiculous that Ukraine has had to suffer its infrastructure and its Economy being destroyed whilst Russia needed not at all worry about having it’s productive and economic infrastructure degraded: since Putin doesn’t seem to care at all about human lives, until Ukraine finally made their own weapons with range enough to hit Russian Economic Targets and started targetting Russian refineries, this invasion of his had been almost risk-free.
Ah ok, I misinterpreted your post then. I thought you were insinuating that because refineries are civilian infrastructure Ukraine shouldn’t be targeting them. We’re in agreement here, don’t target actual civilians and slam as many drones as possible into refineries and any other valid targets within Russia.