[Goose]

Russia is indeed trying to break Ukraine's spirit. Ukraine has virtually no chance to do the same to Russia. Their attempts at it are targeting the home front. Striking back always raises morale. The problem is when/if the populations decides their retaliations are futile. 

You seem to take it as given, but is it true that Ukraine's illegal guerilla warfare tactics have no chance to make Russia want a negotiated settlement?  (Granted, it was long ago under different leadership, but Russia did leave a quagmire in Afghanistan that it "could not lose.")

Ukraine's drone attacks into Russia proper will never be large enough to inflict significant damage on Russia proper. It might be enough to piss off the Russian public (against Ukraine), but not near enough for them to want to quit. A guerilla war in Ukraine (not Russia proper) OTOH could possibly succeed and make Russia decide to leave. However, one must remember that it took 10 YEARS to make that happen in Afghanistan. The country of Afghanistan and Afghan society is much better suited to a long insurgency than Ukraine is. The religious factor was certainly key to continued resistance, as well as the fact that mountainous tribal Afghanistan is an ideal place to do it. IMO Ukraine will not be able to continue resistance at scale if their entire country is occupied. That isn't the case we are discussing however.

If you answered "yes," then why did Ukraine just launch an attack that wasn't really plausibly targeting a military target?  Do you think it was an anomaly and/or a "trial balloon," as the kids are calling it these days?

IMO it was done, as I said, mostly for the consumption of the Ukrainian public. Right now, the Ukrainian populace has to sit there and absorb these Russian strikes. They undoubtedly don't like that, and it may appear to them that nothing can be done to stop these strikes (other than air defense efforts). The Ukraine delivering a similar attack on Russia proper sends the message to the Ukrainian public that Ukraine is striking back. "We aren't helpless". That is great as long as the Ukrainian public morale increases because of the action. My fear is that it will quickly become obvious there is a massive difference of scale. That will ruin the morale factor.

Anyway, the bigger part of my question is whether there is any mechanism to enforce the laws of war against Russia.  You and I and everyone else knows that Russia has engaged in, and is continuing to engage in, mass crimes against humanity.  It seems there isn't a great way for anyone to enforce the laws of war without risking an escalation of the conflict to unacceptable levels.  Does that mean Russia and similarly situated world powers are effectively immune from the laws of war under all circumstances?

Unfortunately, yes. It has always been thus.  Once a war starts, force becomes the only arbiter of behavior. The "force" can stop short of "traditional" war, e.g. economic sanctions. If that doesn't work, the only option is more force, like say a blockade ("quarantine" if you think that sounds better :-).  Eventually however, one must realize the purpose of war is compulsion. If you aren't ultimately willing to go to war to enforce "the rules of war", they won't be. Simple as that.

Do you think there will there be accountability at some point in the future?

Only when it doesn't matter anymore :-). If Russia has a change of government at some time in the future, they may allow the rest of the world to  hold those who ordered (and committed, if you can find them) "war crimes". These people will at that point no longer be in power so what happens to them has little practical benefit. They will be sent to the 21st century version of Spandau where they will write books. It will have about the same effect going forward as the ones in 1946 did. Sad but true IMO.

[Goose]

Russia is indeed trying to break Ukraine's spirit. Ukraine has virtually no chance to do the same to Russia. Their attempts at it are targeting the home front. Striking back always raises morale. The problem is when/if the populations decides their retaliations are futile. 

You seem to take it as given, but is it true that Ukraine's illegal guerilla warfare tactics have no chance to make Russia want a negotiated settlement?  (Granted, it was long ago under different leadership, but Russia did leave a quagmire in Afghanistan that it "could not lose.")

Ukraine's drone attacks into Russia proper will never be large enough to inflict significant damage on Russia proper. It might be enough to piss off the Russian public (against Ukraine), but not near enough for them to want to quit. A guerilla war in Ukraine (not Russia proper) OTOH could possibly succeed and make Russia decide to leave. However, one must remember that it took 10 YEARS to make that happen in Afghanistan. The country of Afghanistan and Afghan society is much better suited to a long insurgency than Ukraine is. The religious factor was certainly key to continued resistance, as well as the fact that mountainous tribal Afghanistan is an ideal place to do it. IMO Ukraine will not be able to continue resistance at scale if their entire country is occupied. That isn't the case we are discussing however.

If you answered "yes," then why did Ukraine just launch an attack that wasn't really plausibly targeting a military target?  Do you think it was an anomaly and/or a "trial balloon," as the kids are calling it these days?

IMO it was done, as I said, mostly for the consumption of the Ukrainian public. Right now, the Ukrainian populace has to sit there and absorb these Russian strikes. They undoubtedly don't like that, and it may appear to them that nothing can be done to stop these strikes (other than air defense efforts). The Ukraine delivering a similar attack on Russia proper sends the message to the Ukrainian public that Ukraine is striking back. "We aren't helpless". That is great as long as the Ukrainian public morale increases because of the action. My fear is that it will quickly become obvious there is a massive difference of scale. That will ruin the morale factor.

Anyway, the bigger part of my question is whether there is any mechanism to enforce the laws of war against Russia.  You and I and everyone else knows that Russia has engaged in, and is continuing to engage in, mass crimes against humanity.  It seems there isn't a great way for anyone to enforce the laws of war without risking an escalation of the conflict to unacceptable levels.  Does that mean Russia and similarly situated world powers are effectively immune from the laws of war under all circumstances?

Unfortunately, yes. It has always been thus.  Once a war starts, force becomes the only arbiter of behavior. The "force" can stop short of "traditional" war, e.g. economic sanctions. If that doesn't work, the only option is more force, like say a blockade ("quarantine" if you think that sounds better :-).  Eventually however, one must realize the purpose of war is compulsion. If you aren't ultimately willing to go to war to enforce "the rules of war", they won't be. Simple as that.

Do you think there will there be accountability at some point in the future?

Only when it doesn't matter anymore :-). If Russia has a change of government at some time in the future, they may allow the rest of the world to  hold those who ordered (and committed, if you can find them) "war crimes". These people will at that point no longer be in power so what happens to them has little practical benefit. They will be sent to the 21st century version of Spandau where they will write books. It will have about the same effect going forward as the ones in 1946 did. Sad but true IMO.