Not necessarily. Like I said elsewhere in this thread, if a company makes guns for the enemy military and toys children in different factories, only the gun factory would be legal to bomb; bombing the toy factory would still be a war crime despite the shared ownership.

I don't agree with this. The company is providing funding to the military, which is made through sales. Part of the war is cutting off this funding. The fact they're also distributing weapons just makes them a particularly nice target, but I think attacking the oligarchs is good regardless, as they're part of the larger system that's doing the invasion. Yeah, they shouldn't be attacking targets that intentionally harm civilians with no other motive, but they should be targeting the larger strategic assets that fund the war. A kinetic embargo, so to speak.

Civilians, who are (especially in a colonial autocracy like Russia) third parties not directly involved in the conflict, don't suddenly have their rights waived because the armed gang ruling over them are pieces of shit. That's collective punishment, and even without international law it's the sort of thing we always recognize as psychopathic when done to anyone we don't already hate.

I didn't say they need to be punished. You're misinterpreting what I said. I said they need to suffer consequences. This isn't to rehabilitate them or bring justice, like a punishment is meant to. It's because they need to rise up against the oligarchy. It's not a punishment. It's an incentive. It isn't because they did something wrong and need to be served justice. It's because the war needs to end and Putin isn't going to end it; they must. If they get to live their lives undisturbed by the war, while their nation makes those across the border a living hell, they have no reason to overthrow their leaders. If their lives are falling apart then they do.

Things that would make one fucked if not done are generally not banned under international law. As for your example, anti-personnel mines aren't banned under international law. There's a treaty to ban them, but that's a different story.

What do you think international law is? It's a bunch of treaties. It isn't some thing that just exists. It's agreements by other nations. And no, it sometimes does make you fucked. For example, Ukraine would not be allowed to build nuclear weapons, despite it almost certainly offering them protection. Meanwhile Russia is allowed to have them and build more. International law is mostly a fiction. Morality we can discuss, but international law is not just some descrete set of rules that you must follow. It's guidelines, and going over the blurry edge is generally allowed. Hell, even when you go way too far (Israel) there are often very few, if any, consequences.

If you want to discuss morality, then we can have a discussion. If bombing these warehouses brings an end to the invasion quicker, and fewer people die because of it, isn't it morally justified? It isn't like you're cutting off their water and making thousands suffer and die. You're cutting off supply for businesses, and maybe a few civilians die (a shit ton more soldiers are dying every day, many drafted who would be civilians by choice). It's a morally justified target from most viewpoints I can think of. The only one that wouldn't justify it is if only actions matter and not consequences, aka deontologism. This might be what you follow, but I don't think many modern people do. Most people think the consequences matter.

Also, it's not like ruining people's livelihoods is exactly kosher without clear military value.

War isn't kosher! I don't know if you've never seen what war actually looks like, or never thought about it, but war is fucked up. No one gets to sit on moral high ground in war. You kill the other person or you die; sometimes both. It's brutal and disgusting, and anyone saying it needs to follow some strict moral ruleset is going to be dead on the battlefield. If you can do something that prevents more of "the good guys" from dying, especially if it also prevents more of the bad guys from fighting, it's a good thing.

Things being on fire tends to galvanize people against the people setting things on fire even if nobody was dying (which is not the case here), and you can bet that Russian media will amplify the damage done to small businesses.

You know what galvanizes them even more? Telling them they're fighting a righteous battle and then continuing life as normal. If they see that their lives are at risk, not just some far off enemy, then they will eventually take a stand. Letting them live in peace and not have the war come to them will not force them to end the war. When has that ever happened?

Then actions taken primarily in service of that goal are war crimes, plain and simple. Anything negative with "civilians" in it as the primary goal of a military action is pretty much guaranteed to be a war crime, because protecting civilians from armed reprisal is half the point of international law.

No it isn't! It's to prevent unnecessary damage. Civilians have certain protections, but international law does not shield them from the consequences of a war their nation is waging. Here's the relevant article. If it isn't indiscriminate and has any military value (and is not a select few explicit civilian structures) then it's a valid target. To say it isn't you need to prove that they knew it didn't have any military purpose, which isn't going to happen.

Or it could be that they couldn't find an excuse to bomb those. Besides, they're bombing oil infrastructure instead, which seems to have pretty much the same effect (while still having a clear military purpose).

Yes, those have a clear military purpose. They are bombing power infrastructure in Crimea, so I think they could find the excuse if they wanted to. There, it's pretty damn valid, as the place is being put under siege. The power is being used for military installations, and the civilians have a path to leave. They could use the same excuse elsewhere, but they aren't.