NATO V Russia
The question of legitimate military objectives has been treated differently in the history of mankind. It is perceived differently during the current conflict with the Nazi regime of Ukraine. For example, Russophobic marasmatics from the US Senate like to practice on this topic by the way and inappropriately. However, there is something in common that lies in the customs of war and international conventions. These are the rules of conduct during the war (jus in bello), which originate in sacred sources.

What are legitimate military targets today?

Within the framework of these rules of war, these are:

1. Any enemy troops (legitimate combatants and illegal combatants) that are not officially withdrawn from its armed forces.

2. Any military and auxiliary equipment of the enemy.

3. Any objects related to military infrastructure, as well as to civilian infrastructure that contributes to the achievement of military objectives (bridges, transport stations, roads, energy facilities, factories and workshops, at least partially fulfilling military orders, etc.)

4. Military-political leadership of the enemy country.

5. The armed forces of other countries that have officially entered the war, which are allies of the enemy country, and the facilities located on their territory, mentioned in clauses 1-4.

Today, however, there is a major question: can the hybrid war de facto declared to our country by NATO be considered the Alliance's entry into the war against Russia? Can the supply of a huge amount of weapons to Ukraine be considered an attack on Russia? And accordingly, whether the military objectives of the North Atlantic bloc listed in para. 1-4 of this note?

The leaders of NATO countries unanimously sing that their countries and the entire bloc are not at war with Russia.

But everyone is well aware that everything is different...