this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
43 points (97.8% liked)
Ukraine
8579 readers
544 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
🇺🇦 Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
🌻🤢No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
💥Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
🚷Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
❗ Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
💳💥 Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
💳⚕️⛑️ Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
🪖 🫡 Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/pt/customary-ihl/v2/rule47
"Geneva Conventions (1949)
Pursuant to common Article 3(1) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions,
[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3; Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3; Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3; Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3(1)."
Not sure if that has kept up with the technology of drones.
It makes sense to not shoot the guy if you are there in person and can help him instead, taking him as a prisoner of war and getting him medical aid.
When you are there with a drone the only option is to put him out of his misery or leave him to die a slow death. Either way he probably dies.
If he has no hope for being helped, that's his choice to take to end his life or not.
This is without a doubt a war crime. Lower than bombarding a theater full of children, but a war crime nonetheless.
Now that's for a judge to evaluate the full context, but in the current situation an inquiry should be opened.
There are many doubts. He could be faking injury, drunk, still armed. The observer drone who suspected incapacitation was not the one attacking so you'd have to prove the actual attacking drone operator believed the target was incapacitated. Injured =/ incapacitated and his presence alone at the front occupies enemy territory which means they are a participant.
The bounds on what are 'reasonable' are very different in war than civilian life. This tendency to jump to 'ope warcrime' is as irrational as saying someone with an automatic weapon firing a burst commits a warcrime when the second round in a row strikes the victim. 'They were injured with the first bullet so it is a warcrime and automatic weapons must be prohibited by law'!
Had this soldier been on a stretcher, and/or being attended by an unarmed someone with a red cross on their arm, or had waved a white anything in the air, I'd agree with calling it a warcrime. A still conscious soldier being tossed out on their ass by 2 armed soldiers and 'appearing injured' in this era where the enemy feigns injury/death to avoid drone strikes is not hors de combat.
Looney tunes brain over here.
They're actively holding this building, these guys didn't just fly a drone to nowhere and attack. This is very clearly the midst of a contested area, if he's in that area and no sign of surrender, I see no white flag or anything resembling looking for someone to surrender to, what I see is some shit head drunk Russians getting their shit stuffed because their morale is shit.
Russia is literally forcing these people to fight, coming in here and saying anything about a war crime especially when nothing even close to one happens makes you an absolute dopey dope
That's a direct quote from the Geneva convention. The op was replying to a comment that stated that this was a war crime and asked for a source, which I provided. What part of that do you consider "dummy talk"?
Because that's not the situation here.
This is soldiers completely operating with the intention of combat this is not a war crime at all. The guy looks drunk and at best this is a dereliction of duty.
This person isn't surrendering, their allies are absolutely ready to fight. What's the crime?
First of all, if their allies are ready to fight, then kill them.
Second, the guy clearly has an injured right leg and appears unarmed.
If the roles were reversed, would you feel the same? When the Russians do this shit, do you make excuses and say the guy was drunk or that it was a mercy killing? Granted, I don't see Ukrainians throwing their wounded outside to die, but that brings up another thought. What if this guy was a Ukrainian POW that the Russians decided to throw outside?
I fucking hate the Russians for what they're doing, and I hope Putin ends up getting thrown screaming out of a window before the end of the day. But the argument that this was a "mercy killing" or that this guy was combat effective seems disingenuous, at least without further context.
No because one is invading the other. If you're really not trying to fight, go surrender. He isn't and wasn't, his friends being shitty doesn't make this a war crime
In a combat zone you are considered combat effective until proven otherwise. This is not a warcrime. Faking an injured leg or being dead are commonly done to avoid getting droned. Not seeing a weapon isn't an excuse either. Grenade on the belt, or sidearm in the coat are both likely possibilities. You don't know and until you do it is safer to take them out then apply warm and fuzzy civilian sensibilities to the problem.
Lol exactly. This dude is still fully equipped, I see no flag not even a semblance of looking to surrender. Just cause his comrades suck doesn't make him innocent, get the fuck out of the war zone then