Re: Seems reasonable and fair
Not "desirable", not "necessary", but "absolutely necessary". However, the Russian targeting of Ukrainian civilian heating and electricity generation infrastructure is already a more clear-cut example of a breach than Starlink would be.
But is it? I've linked this before-
The graphite bomb was first used against Iraq in the Gulf War (1990–1991), knocking out 85% of the electrical supply. Similarly, the BLU-114/B "Soft-Bomb" graphite bomb was used by NATO against Serbia in May 1999, disabling 70% of that country's power grid. After initial success in disabling Serbian electric power systems, the electric supply was restored in less than 24 hours. The BLU-114/B was again used a few days later to counter Serbian efforts to restore damage caused by the initial attack. In the later stage of Operation Allied Force, NATO's air forces used conventional bombs and rockets to target power highlines and transformer stations.
So we can just argue it was absolutely necessary. Or refuse to recognise international courts that might attempt to prosecute for war crimes. Russia could argue it was necessary because Ukraine's got an electrified rail system that it uses to transport heavy equipment. It had targetted railways and rail yards prior to widening the attacks to prevent Ukraine redeploying or reinforcing.
There's also been hypocrisy around hydrological warfare. The Bbc ran a story a couple of days ago about a fresh water main being 'blown up' and blaming Russia. Ukraine had previously dammed a canal providing fresh water to Crimea. Two wrongs don't make a right. Then there's been the wider problem of economic warfare and sanctions. We've seized assets and property from Russian citizens, some of which has been sold off. So if civilian assets are fair game, why not retaliate against civilian targets that are actively being used in a conflict? Especially when that's becoming ever easier, ie people are assuming Russia would have to use ASAT missiles. Sure, it has those, along with other nations, but it's also been developing DEW (Directed Energy Weaons), just as we have.
So it's all a bit of a mess. Especially when it comes to actual legal stuff. We have the UN, but that's become rather political. We have international courts that have been listening to disputes like who owes money for gas transiting Ukraine. But there have been claims that those courts are biased and rigged. Maybe they are, maybe they're not, but perception can be reality. If nations can refuse to recognise court jurisdictions or rulings though, what's the point? Justics isn't served, crimes will continue to go unpunished, and that's generally not a good thing for the world in general.