Galeev-style threads are being made fun of for good reason, but there actually is some "historical context" to Ukrainian war crimes, and I'm not going to appeal to the deficiency of someone's genes or culture, as Western "Russia experts" generally do.
The modern Ukrainian state, by embracing the heritage of Stepan Bandera & the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, has created a military culture that is built upon glorifying things like sabotage & guerilla warfare - generally, the "dirtiest" kind of war. 
Who are the main military heroes in the propagandistic account of Russian history? People like Generalissimo Suvorov with his heroic bayonet charges & Alps-crossings, or the ever-victorious Admiral Ushakov, who was declared a Saint.
The current Ukrainian myth, which, as I've said many times, attempts to impose an identity based upon Galician anti-Soviet resistance on all Ukrainians, reveres Bandera - a man famous for engaging in a very different kind of warfare: assassinations, terrorism, ethnic cleansing.
These archetypes are absorbed from an early age as kids are being taught to worship the UPA as Founding Fathers. That is why the idea of urban warfare is easily understood by most Ukrainians - the state has been telling them for decades that Ukraine is founded upon this.
The idea that they're endangering civilians doesn't even cross the minds of the military - this is what they have been taught is the pinnacle of patriotism. And the worst thing is, that this strategy doesn't even imply victory. Its goal is to impose high costs on the enemy.
Protecting civilians does not factor into this, & looking for spies & saboteurs within their own ranks was the main activity of the UPA. It's a sad state of affairs, and I believe that three decades of government propaganda are to blame for the UKR military thinking this way.
P.S. I'm not just referring to the stuff in the videos - the whole UKR military strategy is focused on using cities as cover for military action. There is overwhelming evidence for them using civilian residences as firing positions, placing artillery near civilian targets, etc
P.P.S. The concepts of ius ad bellum & ius in bello are separate from each other for a reason, and if you believe that one party of the conflict has declared an illegal war, that does not in any way absolve the other party from being bound by the rules of war.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
