If they can be conceived as considerably assisting the war effort against you, and destroying it has definite gain for you, its a legit military target.
It has a written definition. As long as the damage to civilians is proportional to the gain, then its legitimate. In fact, it was shown in Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention that defined it that a "random girl who makes oil for work that down the line is used for tanks" can be argued as a legitimate military target.
As long as the attack can be said to not be random on civilians directly or food/water sources, it can be protected under that banner if the gain is significant enough. Which is why appealing to something as retarded as the Geneva Convention definitions is dumb (especially as Russia revoked their agreement to it like 4 years ago).
What sort of gain would Russia have in destroying a pedestrian bridge, a playground and a random car in the middle of the street? Or perhaps they didn't care. Or they were so incompetent that they tried to aim somewhere but fucked it up and missed by a mile or more their target. Interesting that they withdrew from that convention, perhaps preparing for this war since then.
The loss of morale and show of force, like thousands of other examples throughout history. That's the benefit of leaving the Geneva, you can actually fight a war instead of playing by rules that say war isn't allowed in a war.
Then you won't mind if Ukraine does the same thing? Because I know for a fact Russia likes to cry some fake news about Ukraine bombing their "citizens" in Donetsk and thus giving reason to their invasion.
It depends on the factory and road. Randomly targeting them and even hitting German sovereign territory is wrong.
If they can be conceived as considerably assisting the war effort against you, and destroying it has definite gain for you, its a legit military target.
It has a written definition. As long as the damage to civilians is proportional to the gain, then its legitimate. In fact, it was shown in Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention that defined it that a "random girl who makes oil for work that down the line is used for tanks" can be argued as a legitimate military target.
As long as the attack can be said to not be random on civilians directly or food/water sources, it can be protected under that banner if the gain is significant enough. Which is why appealing to something as retarded as the Geneva Convention definitions is dumb (especially as Russia revoked their agreement to it like 4 years ago).
What sort of gain would Russia have in destroying a pedestrian bridge, a playground and a random car in the middle of the street? Or perhaps they didn't care. Or they were so incompetent that they tried to aim somewhere but fucked it up and missed by a mile or more their target. Interesting that they withdrew from that convention, perhaps preparing for this war since then.
The loss of morale and show of force, like thousands of other examples throughout history. That's the benefit of leaving the Geneva, you can actually fight a war instead of playing by rules that say war isn't allowed in a war.
Then you won't mind if Ukraine does the same thing? Because I know for a fact Russia likes to cry some fake news about Ukraine bombing their "citizens" in Donetsk and thus giving reason to their invasion.