On indiscriminate use of drones. Every time they do so, Russia claims it is attacking "infrastructure". That does NOT make it a legal target.
First, virtually every Convention on the Law of War specifically addresses "terrorism":
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “[A]ll measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
Additional Protocol I
Article 51(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population”.
Additional Protocol II
Article 4(2)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II prohibits “acts of terrorism” against all persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities.
Additional Protocol II
Article 13(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population”.
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
Article 3 of the 2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone provides: “The Special Court shall have the power to prosecute persons who committed or ordered the commission of serious violations … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II]. The violations shall include: … (d) Acts of terrorism.”
Threats to commit acts of terrorism are covered by Article 3(h).
Second, is the fundamental principle of distinction between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. From Doctors without Borders' "Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law":
"The definition of a military objective is a crucial part of the mechanism for protecting civilians in times of conflict. There are two cumulative conditions that complement each other:
The nature, the place, the purpose, or the use of the object must effectively contribute to military action. Therefore, the civilian or military nature of an object depends on the effect this object has on the course of the conflict.
The destruction of the object—in whole or in part—capturing it, or neutralizing it must show a specific military advantage. Hence, attacks that will result in solely unspecified or potential advantage are prohibited.
In case of doubt concerning an object that is normally used for civilian purposes—such as a house or other dwelling, a place of worship, or a school—parties to a conflict must assume that the object in question is not being used for military purposes (API Art. 52.3). In order for the attack to be considered legitimate, it must be shown that it was indeed used for military purpose and that the civil destructions remain proportional.
At all times, humanitarian law establishes that military commanders have the obligation to respect a number of precautions in the conduct of military operations, so as to ensure the protection of civilians. For instance, these precautions consist in prohibiting excessive use of force and doing “everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects” and in “minimizing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects” (API Art. 57)."
Third, and directly related to the concept of distinction is the principle of proportionality. Even if there is a military advantage to be gained by destroying an object, its destruction must not have a disproportionate effect on the civilian population that exceeds its military importance. The buzz-bombing of locations nowhere near the front, and having very little military utility is a war crime, pure and simple.
During the war in the former Yugoslavia, UN forces went to extreme lengths to avoid civilian impacts, going so far as to develop particular munitions for the purpose.
But what can you expect from a fascist terrorist state like russia