Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Hobsons Choice]

29 minutes ago, Genie said:

There were no potential civilians hiding amongst the trees with the Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

1. No-one can know that.(Edit- someone obviously knows that, but unless they go there the Ukrainians can't).

2. The original point, and question posed was whether the act was not in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and as far as I can tell the only stipulations are a) is it an incendiary weapon and b) is it a wooded area. 

I feel that I've tangentially wandered into trying to justify the meaning behind this clause when my original question/point was point 2 above. 

Ultimately I personally don't think the use of thermite as a weapon is a thing I would consider justifiable. 

Edited September 3 by Hobsons Choice

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

 

[magnkarl]

13 hours ago, Hobsons Choice said:

1. No-one can know that.(Edit- someone obviously knows that, but unless they go there the Ukrainians can't).

2. The original point, and question posed was whether the act was not in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and as far as I can tell the only stipulations are a) is it an incendiary weapon and b) is it a wooded area. 

I feel that I've tangentially wandered into trying to justify the meaning behind this clause when my original question/point was point 2 above. 

Ultimately I personally don't think the use of thermite as a weapon is a thing I would consider justifiable. 

Sadly this is war. Russia have been deploying all sorts of banned substances in Ukraine for years on end. I can 100% guarantee to you that this treeline in Stepove or wherever has zero civilians in it, unless they are brought there by Russian soldiers for repeated rape.

It's all good to think about ethics, but Ukraine is fighting this war with one hand behind its back, mainly due to countries like ours not allowing them to strike military targets deep within Russia. 'We' also employ the same kind of tactics when push comes to shove, unfortunately, German cities, Mosul, Fallujah, you name it.

War is hell, this use of termite on clear military targets who have invaded Ukraine is in my opinion not against the Geneva convention. 

[bielesibub]

35 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Sadly this is war. Russia have been deploying all sorts of banned substances in Ukraine for years on end. I can 100% guarantee to you that this treeline in Stepove or wherever has zero civilians in it, unless they are brought there by Russian soldiers for repeated rape.

It's all good to think about ethics, but Ukraine is fighting this war with one hand behind its back, mainly due to countries like ours not allowing them to strike military targets deep within Russia. 'We' also employ the same kind of tactics when push comes to shove, unfortunately, German cities, Mosul, Fallujah, you name it.

War is hell, this use of termite on clear military targets who have invaded Ukraine is in my opinion not against the Geneva convention. 

Ukraine thinking outside of the box.

[il_serpente]

30 minutes ago, bielesibub said:

Ukraine thinking outside of the box.

That wood knot be a war crime.

[Panto_Villan]

Regarding the use of incendiary weapons - no, it doesn’t breach the Geneva convention. Protocol 3 states that:

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

However, if it were, most of the comments on here justifying it seem misplaced. All the same arguments about “Russia did it first” or “you can only have an opinion on it if you’re Ukrainian” etc would support Ukraine torturing POWs and Russian civilians to death, which one would hope people are actually against.

At the end of the day Ukraine is already breaking the Geneva Convention in minor ways (eg there’s rules about not videoing POWs). The important thing imo is to maintain perspective that these are very minor war crimes given the context, rather than try to deny that they are war crimes or that committing war crimes is bad.

[Captain_Townsend]

Someone invading your country unprovoked is a major wrong and as far as I am concerned you should be able to go quite far in trying to turf an invader out.

Invading another country unprovoked is a violation of all I hold dear.

[avfc1982am]

After seeing what Russia has done in scorching the earth throughout Ukraine I'm actually gobsmacked anyone cares about what Ukraine do to rid themselves of this parasite.

Here is your Geneva Convention.... just a couple of examples. The first one being in Bakhmut. 

The moment Russia decided to use these methods of destruction against civilians they decided they couldn't care less about the Geneva Convention. 

[magnkarl]

Or how is bombing Ukrainian hospitals and universities repeatedly (like last night) killing hundreds not even given two hoots about in the UN? The Geneva convention is only mentioned by Russia when someone does something minor (like this napalm-like attack), but everyone on 'that side' is deafeningly silent when North Korean\Iranian\Russian missiles slam into civilian targets on a daily basis.

ATACMS, Scal-P and Storm Shadows need to be allowed to hit the areas where these missiles are launched from, or else we're just hypocrites really. If we care about the geneva convention we should care enough to let Ukraine hit the planes/airfields/naval ports causing massive civilian losses daily.

Last night Russia bombed the Norwegian and Danish church's humanitarian headquarters in Kyiv. Maybe it's time for Norway to let Ukraine have a go with some of their excellent long range stuff. Naval/Joint strike missiles/penguins, you name it. Someone needs to show the so called 'great' nations of NATO that Putin's red lines are hogwash.

Denmark is already the top donator of military aid per gdp to Ukraine, this will likely just make them go even harder.

Edited September 4 by magnkarl

[villa89]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Someone needs to show the so called 'great' nations of NATO that Putin's red lines are hogwash.

You have to assume they know that already. The drip feed of support must have some other motive. For example is it a delaying tactic to allow western European countries to build up military equipment/defenses. Is it a way to weaken Russia over the long term or keep them bogged down in Ukraine so they can't go anywhere else?

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Stringing it out seems to be for one intention.  

Hopefully Putin will die.  

Russia will give him a hero's funeral and then blame him for absolutely everything. 

The new Russian leadership will graciously withdraw to the east, give up certain Ukrainian cities and hold a victory parade for defeating NATO. 

A long term peace deal will be negotiated.  This will cover the west dropping sanctions, Ukraine joining NATO and a formal border with demilitarised zone. 

 

 

[Anthony]

22 hours ago, Hobsons Choice said:

1. No-one can know that.(Edit- someone obviously knows that, but unless they go there the Ukrainians can't).

2. The original point, and question posed was whether the act was not in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and as far as I can tell the only stipulations are a) is it an incendiary weapon and b) is it a wooded area. 

I feel that I've tangentially wandered into trying to justify the meaning behind this clause when my original question/point was point 2 above. 

Ultimately I personally don't think the use of thermite as a weapon is a thing I would consider justifiable. 

Hobson's choice indeed! 

In war you can never be certain that only legitimate military targets will be damaged/hurt/killed/destroyed. So, you have your own rules of engagement, taking into account the Geneva Convention, that is essentially how to evaluate the risk/reward payoff. e.g. We won't target schools. We will regret military barracks. So far, so straightforward. What if the barracks is in a school? What steps do we take to ensure there are no civilians there? What if there's just one? What if there are one thousand? And how accurate is our info? 

War is horrific and whilst I would obviously hate to be in the firing line, I would also hate to have to make these decisions. People get killed, maimed, traumatised, and it's never nice. 

With regards to this thermite usage; thermite or bombs, it's all horrible. Chances of civilians being in trench in a field from which invaders are firing at you? Pretty much nil, but you can never be 100% certain.

[Mozzavfc]

16 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Stringing it out seems to be for one intention.  

Hopefully Putin will die.  

Russia will give him a hero's funeral and then blame him for absolutely everything. 

The new Russian leadership will graciously withdraw to the east, give up certain Ukrainian cities and hold a victory parade for defeating NATO. 

A long term peace deal will be negotiated.  This will cover the west dropping sanctions, Ukraine joining NATO and a formal border with demilitarised zone. 

 

 

I actually think it's the opposite. I think quite a few leaders are worried what happens after Putin, and want him to save face. His hold over Russia is so tight, that once he goes, if Russia just disintegrates then we'd basically end up with a middle east style power vacuum filled with rebels with access to nukes/nuclear materials 

[Panto_Villan]

6 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

After seeing what Russia has done in scorching the earth throughout Ukraine I'm actually gobsmacked anyone cares about what Ukraine do to rid themselves of this parasite.

Here is your Geneva Convention.... just a couple of examples. The first one being in Bakhmut. 

The moment Russia decided to use these methods of destruction against civilians they decided they couldn't care less about the Geneva Convention. 

Sure. I guess Ukraine is fully justified in doing literally anything they want against Russia then. Ethics are for suckers.

[villa89]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Stringing it out seems to be for one intention.  

Hopefully Putin will die.  

It definitely isn't this. Putin is 71, he could, and probably will, still be in power in 5+ years time. Stringing out a war hoping an old man dies isn't a credible proposal.

I also don't agree that western countries are scared of a Russia in political turmoil/vacuum. There's no danger to the west from this as it would leave Russia much weaker than it is now and concentrating on domestic situations rather than international ones.   

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, villa89 said:

I also don't agree that western countries are scared of a Russia in political turmoil/vacuum

I mean what danger could a nuclear state in turmoil, that’s corrupt, riddled with competing warlords and oligarchs and private armies who would sell nukes on the black market to god knows which terrorists or other rogue states, pose to the west, apart from massive **** catastrophe?

[magnkarl]

I hope Biden, Macron, Starmer and Scholz watches this video tonight. This could have been avoided if they didn't wee around the pot like Putin's red lines matter.

The missiles which inflicted around 100 civilian casualties today were shot from bombers within range of ATACMS, Scal-P, Storm Shadow, JASSM.. Just saying 'yeah we'll allow Ukraine to shoot them' would likely make Russia move their bomber fleet outside of range, or at least make it harder for them to swarm Ukraine's air defenses from so many angles.

It's a #¤% disgrace. Sullivan is a #¤% disgrace. 'Standing with Ukraine' means 'Standing by Ukraine', not the first of the two. Biden's foreign policy since October last year is nothing short of enabling people who don't give two hoots about international law to do whatever with zero to no consequence. 

Or in Ben Hodges' words: 

Edited September 4 by magnkarl

[villa89]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

who would sell nukes on the black market to god knows which terrorists or other rogue states, pose to the west, apart from massive **** catastrophe?

As far as I know a nuclear weapon isn't the same as a standard missile. You can't just transport it around easily and it costs a lot of money and special facilities to maintain and store. 

This bizarre fear of nuclear war or rogue nations dropping nukes isn't realistic. Russia has nukes, they are at war, they haven't used them and they won't. Ask yourself why that's the case. Now imagine a rogue state gets a nuke or Iran (who probably have one already) have one. What do they do with it? The answer is nothing for the same reasons. 

[avfc1982am]

5 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Sure. I guess Ukraine is fully justified in doing literally anything they want against Russia then. Ethics are for suckers.

Love the sarcasm btw. But no, ethics aren't for suckers however Russia have already proved that they don't give a crap about Ukrainian civilians and would quite happily exterminate them all. On that basis I think Ukraine are fully justified in using whatever methods at their disposal to defend themselves. 

[Genie]

7 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

Love the sarcasm btw. But no, ethics aren't for suckers however Russia have already proved that they don't give a crap about Ukrainian civilians and would quite happily exterminate them all. On that basis I think Ukraine are fully justified in using whatever methods at their disposal to defend themselves. 

I guess it’s in the unwritten rules of engagement, to use whatever the other guy is using is fair game. It’s why nuclear weapons are so rarely used.

If Russia were to use one they know that it dramatically increases the probability they get one in return.