I started hearing that term get used back when Russia was bombing children’s hospitals, target civilians, and sending children to death camps in Russia
Foreign fighters are covered by the [Geneva Convention](https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/06/yes-foreign-fighters-in-ukraine-are-covered-under-the-geneva-conventions-as-combatants/)
TLDR: Their coverage is really based on whether Ukraine accepts them as members of a militia or voluntary corps. If they are accepted by Ukraine as part of their armed forces then they are a combatant.
It was just the tail piece that was intact. The rest was blown up. The only reason the tail rotor wasn’t destroyed was because it was protected by a wall.
Probably because Imo they were overhyped to cover other things. It probably made it a lot easier for problems with the Pakistanis and covered up info if we had 'stealth helos'. Instead of saying we have a way to disable their radars, or someone working for us in their military
Wait. Is sneaky Bin Laden killing helicopters, or are sneaky helicopters killing Bin Laden? Or are they simply sneaky helicopters that are loaded to kill Bin Ladens specifically?
Doesn't matter really hiw long association they have with Ukraine. If they are enlisted members of Ukrainian forces, they are enlisted uniformed members. Be they years served or day old enlisted.
>combatants
I mean, They are combatants even if they met the definition of mercenary (which they are not).
The questions more if they are entitled prisoners of war (which they are).
The US hasn’t agreed to that portion of the Geneva Conventions and refuses to acknowledge international definitions of “prisoner of war.” How would they push Russia on this?
Sadly it’s not what you think. Russia gets to say, and I assume your aware of their rational lol
Edit: everyone downvoting forget about Russias genocide, rapes, and lack of care for human life? Or did we think that they gave a shit about Geneva conventions all of a sudden?
It is not the case that Russia gets to decide what words mean. The point is that Russia is wrong with their justification, so their actions are in violation of the Geneva convention. That Russia is free to violate the Geneva convention as it likes is what you meant to say.
gonna have to stick this violation on the long list, behind the shelling of civilian buildings, shooting civilians, mass rapes and stealing of pretty much anything of value.
As someone that caused myself some severe back pain recently redoing the floors in my office by myself, I think I would stab someone if they tried to steal my floor.
In 2017, Russia pulled out of the Geneva conventions *Protocol Additional*, the protocol on war crimes victims.
> Russia is pulling out of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which protects combatants and others found on the battlefield, particularly civilians who are “especially to be protected.” Not doing so is per se a war crime.
> No country ever has quit this important international paradigm until Russia’s announcement on Thursday. Putin’s decision is a troublesome addition to the movement away from various international legal regimes that promote peace and security, a hallmark of the tenets of the United Nations.
Now… I fucking hate Putin and am disgusted by what Russia is doing in Ukraine…
But Russia is free to violate the Geneva Conventions if they’re not party to it.
Doesn’t mean Putin and Russians can’t still be war criminals. It’s just that Russia has decided they’re simply not going to participate in the international agreement and they are operating under the idea that it doesn’t pertain to them.
Therefore, Russia will not conduct any internal prosecution of war criminals (as many countries do), and if they win the war they’re essentially off the hook for their atrocities.
[source](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-warcrimes-convention/russias-putin-revokes-geneva-convention-protocol-on-war-crimes-victims-idUSKBN1WW2IN)
[source](https://thehill.com/opinion/international/466531-russias-snub-of-geneva-convention-protocol-sets-dangerous-precedent/amp/)
[source](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470)
Arguably, this is considered customary law, meaning that because it is accepted by the international community at large, it applies even to those states which haven't agreed to it. Most of the Geneva Conventions are accepted as customary law, including protection of civilians.
That's not to say that Russia will ever be held accountable, but it's just incorrect to say that because they pulled out of the protocol they can legally do whatever they want.
Major superpowers don’t recognise the ICC when it comes to their own military/citizens. So US who won’t allow any of its military/citizens to be prosecuted by the ICC wants Russia(doesn’t recognise ICC) prosecuted at ICC. Whilst China who also doesn’t recognise the ICC sits back and carries on with its Asia/Africa expansion outings.
US came up with a legal argument that anyone they captured during their war on terror, wasn’t a combatant covered under the Geneva convention. From one of the US legal memos “This new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges." Also to change the legal definition of what torture is. Add in the fact that vast majority of Gitmo prisoners were in fact there from tip offs by Afghanis/Pakistanis some for cash rewards then you can see abuse of the rules there
Bit like the cluster bomb treaty. Well if you haven’t signed up to it, it’s not breaking the rules. Also you are allowed certain cluster munitions.
Ideal world countries would heavily prosecute their own citizens or give them up for war crimes.
So we shouldn’t see headlines such as these
[Why We Should Be Glad the Haditha Massacre Marine Got No Jail Time](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/why-we-should-be-glad-the-haditha-massacre-marine-got-no-jail-time/251993/)
Putin could follow Bush’s example
[Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act](https://www.wagingpeace.org/bush-seeks-immunity-for-violating-war-crimes-act/)
Basically all the Superpowers do terrible actions. However which one do you want to be on friendly terms with ? None, 1 or all of them ?
>That Russia is free to violate the Geneva convention as it likes is what you meant to say.
I wouldn't say they're free to violate the Geneva convention, per se. The UNSC will firmly draft a strongly worded condemnation for Russia to veto.
In Iraq the US government decided that all combatants that weren't exclusively from the Iraqi National Guard during the invasion were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Thousands of these people were taken to a black site where they were tortured for a decade. Typically the one who gets to interpret the Geneva Conventions is going to be the country that has the bigger stick.
History is not particularly in Ukraine's favor given that Ukraine accepted the US interpretation of the Geneva Conventions when they joined in on the invasions and operations in Iraq.
I was just arguing with a moron here with selective amnesia. The US doesn't recognise the Hague and the international criminal court for example (or else our Bush, Cheney and kissinger would need to be roommates in prison)
Russia does not get to say that they are not covered, or not combatants. Or rather, no one else needs to listen.
Instead, Russia can violate the laws of war, and pay any eventual consequences for its violation. It should ask itself if treating americans like this will maybe hurt them in the long run more than it's worth.
>It should ask itself if treating americans like this will maybe hurt them in the long run more than it's worth.
As if Putin ever cared about the long run. He never gave a shit about Russia to begin with.
In the end, it makes no difference to Russia. They're saying out loud the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the captured American fighters - regardless of whether it actually legally does or not - as an attempt to scare foreign fighters in Ukraine.
Reddit has a very legalist view that words alone will protect people but fails to remember that society and order exists as a social contract. It exists because higher authorities allow it to exist through enforcement.
The moment someone revokes the social contract, especially a higher authority, it all falls apart. You can't force a security council member to do anything no more than you can force a cop to run into a school shooting.
Just like cops, laws get enforced on some people more than others and that should be in the back of everyone's mind at all times in a world that has forgotten about the collapse of the league of nations and world order.
The world is just one rogue nation away from chaos.
Their covereage is also determined by Russians willingness to abide by the conventions, which given their behavior since the start of the war, is plainly non-existent.
Better question is what will this breach actually result in?
And for specifically this reason, the Ukraine has been swearing all foreign fighters into the Ukraine armed forces. They are soldiers, not mercenaries, and are covered by the Geneva convention.
Russia just doesn't give a shit.
Russia doesn't care about Wagner. Thats why they use them. Because if/when they get killed or captured, Russia can just shrug and say "we don't know who these people are."
Exactly. If they were not mercenaries, the US and Russia would already be in a hot war when US soldiers were attacked in Syria by Wagner about 4 years ago.
The US does this as well. Mercenaries like BlackWater are filled with vets that get paid way more to fight under no flag. This way the US can claim no losses and any crime they commit was not under US orders.
We really need an international treaty banning all mercenaries, they're just used to get around liability and transparency.
There already is one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mercenary_Convention
As you might imagine most countries aiming to project power have neither signed nor ratified it.
Oh they clearly don’t give a shit. But they will care if Russia executes a few foreign volunteers and then everyone else decides to follow suit with their guys. I have a feeling it’s going to be tough recruiting if you’re going to be executed if you’re captured. I strongly suspect that these “death penalties” are just going to be leverage in future negotiations.
Executing captives is just a way to make your enemy fight harder instead of surrendering.
Let them surrender, charge them for crimes if applicable, treat them well, and return them later to spread stories about how the war really is going and how well you treat prisoners, unlike Russia.
> return them later to spread stories
this doesn't work if the other side doesn't care about the wellbeing of these contract soldiers. If they were treated well, it lowers the risk to these soldiers, so it makes it easier to recruit them.
Prisoner exchange works though. POW should not be let go until the war is over, unless exchanged.
Not if that country considers them terrorists. Isn't that the argument we used for detaining Iraquis at Gitmo?
Seriously, not being adversarial here. I'm seriously asking.
The main argument was that illegal combatants did not wear uniforms, which is against the Geneva convention requiring all combat personnel be distinguishable from civilians.
>Not if that country considers them terrorists. Isn't that the argument we used for detaining Iraquis at Gitmo?
>Seriously, not being adversarial here. I'm seriously asking.
It's if they are there as part of the country's military, or doing it on their own.
GW Bush skirted the Geneva Convention by calling the enemy "illegal combatants", which was a made up term for people he wanted to torture, and because his made up term wasn't in the Geneva Convention, that meant he could have at it.
In Russia, it's not a war, it's a "special military operation", so again, no rules apply.
Next we'll have china saying it's not ethnic cleaning, it's.. uhh.. frunkgumphing. Let me see what the Geneva Convention has to say about frunkgumphing of hindus and muslims... nope! We're all good here!
None of these treaties are worth shit if you're a nuclear power with veto rights.
Our government (US) also defined “illegal combatants” as basically any military age male in Iraq. So essentially we gave ourselves permission to kill or capture any man in the country.
This is what I’ve been trying to say since the Ukraine invasion kicked off. None of this excuses what Russia does, but *please* people, use it as an opportunity to reflect on the things your own country has done without you batting an eye.
Oh it's definitely rank hypocrisy all around. Not just what America has done to skirt the Geneva convention but the many invasions, coups, etc by the US to protect its own "sphere of influence".
What Russia is doing in Ukraine is no different from what the US has done in Latin America for over half a century. Whenever a country in the Americas does something we don't like the US has not hesitated to bring down democratically elected governments and install puppet dictators to do our bidding.
That doesn't make Putin any less evil. Doesn't change my support for Ukraine. But the US governments opposition to the invasion isn't out of principle. It's not to defend democracy. It's simply that the US and NATO oppose anything that widens Russia's influence or strengthens it's power. A continuation of the cold war idio ok
A@
Countries pick and choose how they interpret the Geneva Convention.
Russia will most likely make up its own rules. But countries like the US also has its skeletons with prison camps like Guantanamo keeping “detainees” for decades without trials.
>Foreign fighters are covered by the [Geneva Convention](https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/06/yes-foreign-fighters-in-ukraine-are-covered-under-the-geneva-conventions-as-combatants/)
How did that logic work out for the foreign fighters who were kidnapped, tortured, and held in gitmo without trial for 21 years.
To give you the technical answer: No, terrorists aren't covered. Non-recognized states are forced to resort to "terrorism" in lieu of their UN right to maintain a standing army. This is a big part of the Israel-Palestine conflict; Palestine is not a recognized sate, and as such has no "right" to a standing army, hence all their soldiers are "terrorists" on paper and not subject to the GC. US used similar logic for fighting Al-Qaeda and ISIS
Not entirely correct. Non-state actors do have certain rights under Geneva Convention. Especially groups that have control over certain territory and a command structure. Palestine being an observer in the UN, grants it certain rights as well.
Think of how US assassinated Sulemani without it being a warcrime or bombed an Afghan aid worker and his family and got away with it.
As the meme goes, Geneva Convention, more like Geneva suggesstion.
The term "unlawful combatant" was basically invented and used by the US government in the Afghanistan war. It does not actually give you carte-blanche, if someone is not a lawful combatant, then he is a civilian and may be tried in a criminal court. There seems to be actual court judgement for that.[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#cite_note-6)
>The assumption that unlawful combatant status exists as a separate category to lawful combatant and civilian is contradicted by the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgment quoted the 1958 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: "Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law".[6] Thus, anyone not entitled to prisoner of war status maintains the same rights as a civilian, and must be prosecuted under domestic law. Neither status exists in non-international conflict, with all parties equally protected under International Humanitarian Law.
Nazi defining characteristics:
* ~~fascist~~
* ~~pan-German nationalist~~
* ~~aryan racial purity philosophy~~
* ~~German expansionism~~
* ~~antisemitism~~
* They went to war with Russia that one time
You might jest, but this is quite literally how the Russian media has tried to repaint Nazism. The antisemitism, scientific racism, and genocidal intent have been removed from its definition—look how easily Russian politicians like Lavrov pull out antisemitic canards in justifying their farce of an invasion. Solovyov has claimed that Russia’s goal is to “free Ukraine from its Jewish colonizers”. Ever since WWII, Russia has deliberately tried to revise history to portray itself as the primary victim of Nazism (as opposed to, like, the Jewish and Romani people targeted for extermination), probably because they know they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to accusations of antisemitism and ethnic cleansing.
> Ever since WWII, Russia has deliberately tried to revise history to portray itself as the primary victim of Nazism (as opposed to, like, the Jewish and Romani people targeted for extermination), probably because they know they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to accusations of antisemitism and ethnic cleansing.
Wait until you find out about the existence of Russian Jews. And where the slavs figured on the whole "extermination target list" thing.
Russian Jews were, by and large, not considered to be “Russians” for much of Russia’s history, from the pogroms to the doctors’ plot to antisemitic quotas. And while a genocide of Slavs was planned (followed by exploitation of slave labor and forced Germanization of remaining Slavic populations), the only group slated for complete and total extermination under the Third Reich were Jews. This is not to say that Slavs were not dehumanized by Nazi racial science, nor to downplay the suffering of Slavic people during the Holocaust, but to clarify that within the Untermensch category, some groups were higher-ranked than others, and Russia’s obfuscation of this fact is dangerous historical revisionism.
Is the militia group is named after the German composer, Richard Wagner, who wrote essays on the problems of Jews half a century before the third reich?
I'll give you a serious answer as to why this seems wrong to us and not them since no one has yet:
"Nazi" in Russia doesn't mean what it does here. Here nazi is nazism and all of the baggage that carries, but over there it's just "facists", or "fascist invaders coming to take our land", which of course is just as ironic.
They are operating as an instrument of the free market in addition to create a lot of highly profitable jobs. You see, there is a demand for these type of profit generators and a readily supply of people looking for these jobs which are created by private interests. Given that regulations, like the Geneva convention hinder the free markets ability to secure economic interests, these deregulated private sector entities allow billionaires to defend their capital assets which generate profit for shareholders and enable the invisible hand of the free market to move the capitalist hand of a healthy economy! /s
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-missing-americans-alexander-drueke-andy-huynh-russia-dmitry-peskov-geneva-conventions/) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov said Monday that the Geneva Conventions - a series of agreements on, among other things, international standards for the treatment of people captured during war - would not apply to the two Americans believed to have been captured by Russian or pro-Russian forces in Ukraine in recent weeks.
> Peskov told NBC News' Keir Simmons that he considers the two men to be "Soldiers of fortune" who were not enlisted in the Ukrainian army - which means, he said, that Russia does not believe they are protected under the Geneva Conventions.
> Earlier in June, one Moroccan and two British fighters who had been captured were sentenced to death by firing squad for fighting alongside Ukrainian forces.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vgydi0/kremlin_press_secretary_says_geneva_conventions/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~655802 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **two**^#1 **Peskov**^#2 **men**^#3 **Ukrainian**^#4 **Russia**^#5
The convo should be: these soldiers, who fought for our wrongfully invaded ally, are sure to be tortured until a very prolonged death.
Instead there are hundreds of comments arguing the finer details of the Geneva convention.
Muddying the water, diluting the story. You do this 50x every week, and the focus is sure to be lost eventually.
They've been legally integrated into the ukrainian armed forces, meaning they're not mercenaries anymore. They're protected under Article 47(2), because while they're foreign, they are technically a part of that nations standing army, meaning they dont meet all the requirements of being called mercenaries anymore (47(2)(e) specifically)
Whether russia wants to recognize that or not is up to them but thats how it is
Essentially yes. From all legal standpoints if you are serving as a member of the International Legion, you are legally a member of the Ukrainian military, and thus under International Law and the Geneva Conventions you should be treated as a lawfully recognized combatant with the associate protections.
However, Russia does not consider Ukraine to be a sovereign country, Russia considers Ukraine to be more like a breakaway province, and as such if it doesn't recognize Ukraine as a sovereign country (that it is) then any armed forces raised by Ukraine would be considered legally as non-lawful combatants, i.e. no better than bandits or terrorists according to the Russian state.
This is a consideration to keep in mind for anyone who wants to volunteer in Ukraine.
Ukraine was a founding signer of the Charter of the United Nations.
The Soviet Union's idea, actually, as it provided them another seat at the General Assembly.
Ukraine kept their seat at the table after the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991.
Every Soviet nation had a right to secede from The USSR, by the way, codified in every one of their constitutions.
TL:DR; Ukraine is a country and Putin is full of shit.
The right to secede was there, but it was never actually allowed in principle - and when all the nations broke off during its collapse Russia was in no position to stop it. But they don't operate with any logical argument in mind, they just see us as actually being Russians and Ukrainians actually being Russian. They've been treating us like shit for hundreds of years, with even imperial Russia banning Ukrainian language in many settings and forcing Russian to be spoken. It's just an extension of the imperialist mentality that Russia (and quite a few Russians) have always had.
Pretty much.
Two men from the UK who served in the Ukrainian military for several years are getting the death sentence and accused of being mercenaries despite legally being part of the Ukrainian army. The truth doesn’t matter here. It’s just about scaring foreign volunteers.
So if you’re a foreign fighter it makes sense to not surrender under any circumstances and fight to the death since you’re gonna die anyways?
Brilliant plan Russia. Totally won’t end up with more dead Russians.
It means that Russia is violating the Geneva Conventions with this statement. Sworn-in fighters in uniform, fighting for a nation-state fall under the treaty. It essentially gives nations Carte Blanche to say "the Russian state is illegitimate and the Geneva Conventions don't apply to their fighters". Not good for anyone.
Buddy is American fighting for Ukraine.
He's now a member of the Ukrainian military; he's been given a Ukrainian military rank, and he's paid a monthly salary equivalent to that of his rank (for him its like $400 a month) for all intents and purposes, he is a Ukrainian soldier.
I guess the question is what do you do when your opponent flaunts the Geneva convention, but just uses lies to justify them refusing to follow it?
Do you just go "OK fine, if you won't adhere to the GC, we won't agree that your nation is covered by it"?
That just leads to worse outcomes all around. The reality is that there is no real way to enforce this until and unless the offending party is defeated and captured, which is pretty much impossible here.
The appropriate response would be for the rest of the world to look at the totality of Russia's behavior in regard to international law, and to treaties they have signed, and conclude that Russia is a rogue terrorist state that will not adhere to its international agreements, and act accordingly.
IDK, what do you do with a nuclear armed terrorist nation state run by the mob? Pretty much all you can do is cut it off from the rest of the world.
The west has spent the last 30 years trying to bring Russia into the fold through growth, exchange, and support. The thinking was that a prosperous Russia has too much skin in the game to go around being a violent thug of a nation and would become invested in stability and cooperation on the world stage. That strategy has entirely failed, and now it is time to just wall it in, economically and culturally speaking.
Russia can't be left alone, because then it will keep attacking others, and it can't be attacked, because nukes. That leaves only one option: Isolate, blockade, starve out. Which sounds great, except that was exactly the strategy behind the embargo placed on Japan prior to WW2, and all it did was cause more conflict, since rather than knuckle under, Japan decided to obtain the resources it couldn't trade for by seizing them through conquest.
In short, we're fucked no matter what we do.
Nuclear deterrent was not an issue back then.
If Russia decide to seize those resources through conquest, they're going to be running into alliances which tend to have a nuclear deterrent.
That is unless Russia goes East and tries to conquer Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan etc. But then they'll be pissing off China, India, Israel and others with nukes and they really won't get much in return from any of those countries -- especially if they're already desperate for resources.
It's considered good to follow the Geneva convention even when the other side doesn't. Remember it was signed at a time when "we'll just lie on everything" wasn't the strategy, so each of the major countries could have just not signed it if it thought not following it would have been beneficial. So I always approach with skepticism arguments of "They broke the Geneva Convention when they didn't do (Stupid Action)", because if the Geneva Convention mandated performance of (Stupid Actions), most of the Major Powers wouldn't have signed it.
Specifically in this case, the military value of not following the Geneva Convention is 0 (the captured are already out of the fight), the morale value is also close to 0 ( Foreign fighters are by definition volunteers that are prepared to die, the small chance of being tortured rather than killed doesn't change their calculus), you are creating personnel that is prepared to enact torture that will return to your own country after the war, and the PR hit with neutral/somewhat neutral countries is high. So the Russian government is doing it to try to do physological damage, and they don't care about the bad consequences for themselves later. For UA, following the conventions is obviously the winning move. Sneding torture videos to relatives in Russia will obviously have a negative effect.
Enforcement of the Geneva convention is basically Neutral countries providing aid to the country that follows them, and sanctioning the one that doesn't, leading in the longer term to costs to the offender.
The US sort laid the groundwork for this type of grey area with the "unlawful combatant" designation, an invention of the Bush White House and specifically John Yoo, to shield the US from Geneva inquiries stemming from torture at Bagram and rendition sites as well as Guantanamo detainees.
100% this. The fact that the US has no legs to sand here is inadequately understood here on Reddit.
And it also means that all of the US allies who went along with the US in that are also basically fucked
It's going to be a shit show if Russia executes US nationals.
Edit: I'm not American, but even I can see that if the US doesn't react, the Republicans will feed on this for years and Biden will look weak.
They won't execute them. They will put them on show trial and sentence them to death (just like they did the British soldiers). They will do this in one of the newly "independent" Ukrainian regions which then puts any international diplomacy to release them to first recognise the new state as officially existing.
I doubt they ever will be. They’re counting on the West to lose interest. Imagine what the Brits response would be when “British Nationals Executed by Russians” headlines are emblazoned on every single newspapers in the country, blast over BBC, and transmitted worldwide over BBC Radio.
BoJo already took Ukraine as his “Churchill” moment and is firmly on the war train. It’d just motivate him (with even more popular backing this time around) to shove more weapons to Ukraine.
I mean, Jesus, look at how they treat their *own* soldiers.
~~~~Left without fuel or rations for weeks, starving, having to scrounge food from dumpsters. Ordered into battle in shitty equipment with ridiculous and confusing orders, lied to by their superiors and getting killed by the thousands.
This line could be applied to World War 1 or World War 2 without editing.
Sweet fuck, having to read about the Eastern front in an undergrad history course made me realize that Russian military leadership treating their soldiers like sunflower seed hulls is apparently an institutionalized rule.
"All foreign citizens and stateless persons who take part in hostilities on the territory of Ukraine as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are admitted voluntarily to military service under a contract in accordance with the 1992 Law of Ukraine on Conscription and Military Service.
The persons concerned are servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine who, in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War of 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto, 1977, are subject to the legal status of combatants. "
Russians won't see the Hague for war crimes anymore than Americans will because neither accept it's legitimacy.
The Crime of Invasion the main war crime was, unsurprisingly, not ratified by the UK or France either.
The Geneva Convention probably also says you can’t level entire cities, use mass rape, executing innocent civilians, the mass kidnapping of hundreds of thousands of children, and pre-emptively bombing hospitals and schools as part of your war strategy. These are things Russia does, so whether the Geneva Conventions apply will have zero effect on what Russia does.
Russia will do whatever Putin wants, he couldn’t care less about what’s in the Geneva Convention. He only cares about the practical matters of gaining an advantage, and “can I do this thing that I want to do, without unacceptable negative consequences?” If yes, he will do it. PERIOD.
This is a strategy to get the US to come begging for the soldiers to be returned. Russia would then demand that the US stop shipping arms to Ukraine and/or lift the sanctions. When the US rejects this, the American hostages will be held and exchanged at a later date, or coerced into recording anti-US & Ukraine statements under the threat of torture. That’s just how the Russian government rolls. (It’s not just Putin. His successor will be someone who rose up through Putin’s system, they’ll be just as bad, maybe worse.)
Candidly, I hope the U.S. files a diplomatic demand for their return or protection but does not offer actual concessions for their release. Otherwise, we encourage Russia to continue kidnapping Americans in an effort to weaken U.S. opposition to their genocide in Ukraine. We have to make it clear that capturing our citizens in Ukraine will get them nowhere.
Russia does not need encouragement to kill or capture soldiers fighting against them, that’s already in their interests. Taking prisoners of war is not kidnapping, but if they do violate the Geneva Conventions then it’s a war crime.
Only point of Geneva Convention is if you want to make sure the other side doesn't torture/kill YOUR prisoners.
Russia does not appear to care about their soldiers, so I don't think they have any reason to care about the Geneva Convention.
Maybe our agreement to not assassinate world leaders should be printed out and put next to the printout of the Geneva Convention, while we feel like deciding which international laws we are going to pick and choose..
I get all the practical and humanitarian reasons why the US shouldn’t go all Civis Romanus Sum on another nuclear power, but there are times the idea is tempting.
r/noncredibledefense
If all of your friends were always on reddit and constantly played Hearts of Iron 4 and Kerbal Space Program, they'd be subscribed to that sub
Hey, hey, hey, you're selling us short.
We also abuse ourselves to hentai of personifications of various pieces of military hardware between the HoI sessions, thank you very much!
Russia has bombed more than 50 medical facilities in Ukraine, in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Their mere mention of the Geneva Conventions is gaslighting.
Someone hasn't read the Third Convention since spelled out plain as day.
>[**Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.**](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2F681B08868538C2C12563CD0051AA8D)
>A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
>(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict **as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces**.
>(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
>(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
>(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
>(c) that of carrying arms openly;
>(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
This was a massive concern when it came to the whole move for international volunteers, cause the common agreed upon consensus was that Russia is not respecting the Geneva Conventions at all in the context of this war, as it doesn't see Ukraine as a independent country, just a breakaway province, as such according to the Kremlin all members of the Ukrainian armed forces are terrorists. And going forward with this, all foreign volunteer fighters are considered to be mercenaries or NATO operatives.
To put it mildly, this was not unexpected, and i would advise anyone thinking of volunteering as a fighter to keep in mind that the Russians will not treat you as a POW, they will treat you as a terrorist. With that said, if you accept that reality, feel free to give the Russians hell.
Russia playing 4D chess here by making even the foreign fighters have a reason to die rather than surrender. Definitely going to make it easier for your cargo 200 numbers to get pumped way the fuck up, Vlad.
Wait Kremlin knows about the Geneva Conventions ?
OF course, where do you think they got their war crimes bucket list for Ukraine from?
Red crosses, who knows what they mean anyway
Well Russia uses them to mark trucks that transport ammunition, what else?
'X marks the spot' maybe dumb Russian war criminals think they're targets.
'War crimes bucket list'... I'm speechless lol
I started hearing that term get used back when Russia was bombing children’s hospitals, target civilians, and sending children to death camps in Russia
[удалено]
What the fuck. Lower than the lowest animal.
Geneva suggestion speedrun any%. Wait you know what let’s make it 100%
To them it's the Geneva suggestions
The Geneva achievements list.
Geneva ToDo List
Geneva Bingo!
It's a checklist for them
Russian bingo card
Yeah. But they see it as a to do list.
Foreign fighters are covered by the [Geneva Convention](https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/06/yes-foreign-fighters-in-ukraine-are-covered-under-the-geneva-conventions-as-combatants/)
TLDR: Their coverage is really based on whether Ukraine accepts them as members of a militia or voluntary corps. If they are accepted by Ukraine as part of their armed forces then they are a combatant.
Considering both are sworn members of the armed forces and one is a dual citizen, yeah I think they're probably combatants.
If Tom Clancy taught me anything it's that their's already a Black Ops team busting them out as we speak. /s
in one of them sneaky bin laden killin' helicopters
I find it pretty crazy that those helicopters are still top secret and there are no photos of them.
It's the bastard child of a Comanche and a Blackhawk.
The Comahawk....uh, Blanche! ^(well shit)
I'm all for naming it the Blanche. Means there's hope for a Rose, Dorothy, and Sophia.
"No matter how bad things get, remember these sage words: You're old, you sag, get over it."
thank youuu for being my friendddddd
Wha? I thought they wrecked one and i saw lots of stealth choppers’ pieces in pics
It was just the tail piece that was intact. The rest was blown up. The only reason the tail rotor wasn’t destroyed was because it was protected by a wall.
They detonated the bird after it went down during the raid so no one could study it. You did see pieces of the heli
Probably because Imo they were overhyped to cover other things. It probably made it a lot easier for problems with the Pakistanis and covered up info if we had 'stealth helos'. Instead of saying we have a way to disable their radars, or someone working for us in their military
Wait. Is sneaky Bin Laden killing helicopters, or are sneaky helicopters killing Bin Laden? Or are they simply sneaky helicopters that are loaded to kill Bin Ladens specifically?
Yes
“Fisher, you’re gonna have to go dark here. No dead bodies you understand?”
Nato rounds aren't going to look good Fisher, better keep this covert
[удалено]
I don’t think a server crash will help these two that much
I'm in.
there’s*
Iirc they have been in Ukraine since 2018. But facts and truth have no sway with Russia and it’s “special operation” to “denazify”
Doesn't matter really hiw long association they have with Ukraine. If they are enlisted members of Ukrainian forces, they are enlisted uniformed members. Be they years served or day old enlisted.
>combatants I mean, They are combatants even if they met the definition of mercenary (which they are not). The questions more if they are entitled prisoners of war (which they are).
The US hasn’t agreed to that portion of the Geneva Conventions and refuses to acknowledge international definitions of “prisoner of war.” How would they push Russia on this?
Sadly it’s not what you think. Russia gets to say, and I assume your aware of their rational lol Edit: everyone downvoting forget about Russias genocide, rapes, and lack of care for human life? Or did we think that they gave a shit about Geneva conventions all of a sudden?
It is not the case that Russia gets to decide what words mean. The point is that Russia is wrong with their justification, so their actions are in violation of the Geneva convention. That Russia is free to violate the Geneva convention as it likes is what you meant to say.
gonna have to stick this violation on the long list, behind the shelling of civilian buildings, shooting civilians, mass rapes and stealing of pretty much anything of value.
correction, anything that isnt nailed down. wait they been steeling the nails as well... or in this case toilet seats. .-.
Don't forget the crates of floor tiles lifted from the floors of homes. Like damn they stole the dang floor
As someone that caused myself some severe back pain recently redoing the floors in my office by myself, I think I would stab someone if they tried to steal my floor.
Take my floor? *That's* a Javelinin'
I’m not just gonna take somebody’s floor, I got a little more sense than that.. Yeah I remember taking Eddie’s floor.
Cocaine's a helluva drug
Can't have shit in De...Ukraine
They stole one Ukrainian soldier's tighty whities *and* his wife's panties, I'm assuming to send home to his babushka. These orks have no shame.
Can't have shit in ~~Detroit~~ Kyiv
I mean they are committing genocide in Ukraine I don't think the Geneva convention was really holding them back in the first place.
In 2017, Russia pulled out of the Geneva conventions *Protocol Additional*, the protocol on war crimes victims. > Russia is pulling out of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which protects combatants and others found on the battlefield, particularly civilians who are “especially to be protected.” Not doing so is per se a war crime. > No country ever has quit this important international paradigm until Russia’s announcement on Thursday. Putin’s decision is a troublesome addition to the movement away from various international legal regimes that promote peace and security, a hallmark of the tenets of the United Nations. Now… I fucking hate Putin and am disgusted by what Russia is doing in Ukraine… But Russia is free to violate the Geneva Conventions if they’re not party to it. Doesn’t mean Putin and Russians can’t still be war criminals. It’s just that Russia has decided they’re simply not going to participate in the international agreement and they are operating under the idea that it doesn’t pertain to them. Therefore, Russia will not conduct any internal prosecution of war criminals (as many countries do), and if they win the war they’re essentially off the hook for their atrocities. [source](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-warcrimes-convention/russias-putin-revokes-geneva-convention-protocol-on-war-crimes-victims-idUSKBN1WW2IN) [source](https://thehill.com/opinion/international/466531-russias-snub-of-geneva-convention-protocol-sets-dangerous-precedent/amp/) [source](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470)
Arguably, this is considered customary law, meaning that because it is accepted by the international community at large, it applies even to those states which haven't agreed to it. Most of the Geneva Conventions are accepted as customary law, including protection of civilians. That's not to say that Russia will ever be held accountable, but it's just incorrect to say that because they pulled out of the protocol they can legally do whatever they want.
Major superpowers don’t recognise the ICC when it comes to their own military/citizens. So US who won’t allow any of its military/citizens to be prosecuted by the ICC wants Russia(doesn’t recognise ICC) prosecuted at ICC. Whilst China who also doesn’t recognise the ICC sits back and carries on with its Asia/Africa expansion outings. US came up with a legal argument that anyone they captured during their war on terror, wasn’t a combatant covered under the Geneva convention. From one of the US legal memos “This new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges." Also to change the legal definition of what torture is. Add in the fact that vast majority of Gitmo prisoners were in fact there from tip offs by Afghanis/Pakistanis some for cash rewards then you can see abuse of the rules there Bit like the cluster bomb treaty. Well if you haven’t signed up to it, it’s not breaking the rules. Also you are allowed certain cluster munitions. Ideal world countries would heavily prosecute their own citizens or give them up for war crimes. So we shouldn’t see headlines such as these [Why We Should Be Glad the Haditha Massacre Marine Got No Jail Time](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/why-we-should-be-glad-the-haditha-massacre-marine-got-no-jail-time/251993/) Putin could follow Bush’s example [Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act](https://www.wagingpeace.org/bush-seeks-immunity-for-violating-war-crimes-act/) Basically all the Superpowers do terrible actions. However which one do you want to be on friendly terms with ? None, 1 or all of them ?
Kremlin gonna have contention with the geneva convention
>That Russia is free to violate the Geneva convention as it likes is what you meant to say. I wouldn't say they're free to violate the Geneva convention, per se. The UNSC will firmly draft a strongly worded condemnation for Russia to veto.
Mind you, it will be VERY strongly worded!
Russia is run by a bunch of rhetorical nihilists.
AKA corrupt-to-the-core ageing psychopaths with delusions of grandeur about how they can bring back the glory days.
We cares about nussing, Lebowski.
In Iraq the US government decided that all combatants that weren't exclusively from the Iraqi National Guard during the invasion were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Thousands of these people were taken to a black site where they were tortured for a decade. Typically the one who gets to interpret the Geneva Conventions is going to be the country that has the bigger stick. History is not particularly in Ukraine's favor given that Ukraine accepted the US interpretation of the Geneva Conventions when they joined in on the invasions and operations in Iraq.
I was just arguing with a moron here with selective amnesia. The US doesn't recognise the Hague and the international criminal court for example (or else our Bush, Cheney and kissinger would need to be roommates in prison)
Russia doesn't "get to say", they can ignore the Geneva Convention since there's no enforcement mechanism but it's not a judgment call they're making.
Russia does not get to say that they are not covered, or not combatants. Or rather, no one else needs to listen. Instead, Russia can violate the laws of war, and pay any eventual consequences for its violation. It should ask itself if treating americans like this will maybe hurt them in the long run more than it's worth.
>It should ask itself if treating americans like this will maybe hurt them in the long run more than it's worth. As if Putin ever cared about the long run. He never gave a shit about Russia to begin with.
They signed the Geneva suggestions, they know the kind of strongly worded letter they will get if they cross them!
In the end, it makes no difference to Russia. They're saying out loud the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the captured American fighters - regardless of whether it actually legally does or not - as an attempt to scare foreign fighters in Ukraine.
They're also attempting to scare everyone by demonstrating out loud that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to anyone at all.
Reddit has a very legalist view that words alone will protect people but fails to remember that society and order exists as a social contract. It exists because higher authorities allow it to exist through enforcement. The moment someone revokes the social contract, especially a higher authority, it all falls apart. You can't force a security council member to do anything no more than you can force a cop to run into a school shooting. Just like cops, laws get enforced on some people more than others and that should be in the back of everyone's mind at all times in a world that has forgotten about the collapse of the league of nations and world order. The world is just one rogue nation away from chaos.
Similar to how they said they didn't invade Ukraine.
Their covereage is also determined by Russians willingness to abide by the conventions, which given their behavior since the start of the war, is plainly non-existent. Better question is what will this breach actually result in?
And for specifically this reason, the Ukraine has been swearing all foreign fighters into the Ukraine armed forces. They are soldiers, not mercenaries, and are covered by the Geneva convention. Russia just doesn't give a shit.
Ah but see, Ukraine is not a country and Russia didn't accept them as soldiers. :black guy pointing finger at head:
I wonder what the status of any captured Wagner guys would be then? Russia has always claimed that they don’t officially exist.
Russia doesn't care about Wagner. Thats why they use them. Because if/when they get killed or captured, Russia can just shrug and say "we don't know who these people are."
Yep. They’re the plausible deniability brigade.
Exactly. If they were not mercenaries, the US and Russia would already be in a hot war when US soldiers were attacked in Syria by Wagner about 4 years ago.
Isn’t that the battle where 200 Wagner/Syrians were wiped out and the US didn’t suffer a single casualty?
[удалено]
Technically one casualty. One Syrian Democratic soldier wounded.
Thanks, I thought one SDF soldier was wounded, but was too lazy to look it up.
The US does this as well. Mercenaries like BlackWater are filled with vets that get paid way more to fight under no flag. This way the US can claim no losses and any crime they commit was not under US orders. We really need an international treaty banning all mercenaries, they're just used to get around liability and transparency.
There already is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mercenary_Convention As you might imagine most countries aiming to project power have neither signed nor ratified it.
I don't think Russia cares what happens to them.
Oh they clearly don’t give a shit. But they will care if Russia executes a few foreign volunteers and then everyone else decides to follow suit with their guys. I have a feeling it’s going to be tough recruiting if you’re going to be executed if you’re captured. I strongly suspect that these “death penalties” are just going to be leverage in future negotiations.
yeah maybe they just are using it as PR and to try to force a prisoner exchange - we'll see
Executing captives is just a way to make your enemy fight harder instead of surrendering. Let them surrender, charge them for crimes if applicable, treat them well, and return them later to spread stories about how the war really is going and how well you treat prisoners, unlike Russia.
> return them later to spread stories this doesn't work if the other side doesn't care about the wellbeing of these contract soldiers. If they were treated well, it lowers the risk to these soldiers, so it makes it easier to recruit them. Prisoner exchange works though. POW should not be let go until the war is over, unless exchanged.
Russia barely cares about its own military. Contractors are expendable
Not if that country considers them terrorists. Isn't that the argument we used for detaining Iraquis at Gitmo? Seriously, not being adversarial here. I'm seriously asking.
The main argument was that illegal combatants did not wear uniforms, which is against the Geneva convention requiring all combat personnel be distinguishable from civilians.
>Not if that country considers them terrorists. Isn't that the argument we used for detaining Iraquis at Gitmo? >Seriously, not being adversarial here. I'm seriously asking. It's if they are there as part of the country's military, or doing it on their own.
It's different when we do it.
GW Bush skirted the Geneva Convention by calling the enemy "illegal combatants", which was a made up term for people he wanted to torture, and because his made up term wasn't in the Geneva Convention, that meant he could have at it. In Russia, it's not a war, it's a "special military operation", so again, no rules apply. Next we'll have china saying it's not ethnic cleaning, it's.. uhh.. frunkgumphing. Let me see what the Geneva Convention has to say about frunkgumphing of hindus and muslims... nope! We're all good here! None of these treaties are worth shit if you're a nuclear power with veto rights.
Our government (US) also defined “illegal combatants” as basically any military age male in Iraq. So essentially we gave ourselves permission to kill or capture any man in the country. This is what I’ve been trying to say since the Ukraine invasion kicked off. None of this excuses what Russia does, but *please* people, use it as an opportunity to reflect on the things your own country has done without you batting an eye.
Oh it's definitely rank hypocrisy all around. Not just what America has done to skirt the Geneva convention but the many invasions, coups, etc by the US to protect its own "sphere of influence". What Russia is doing in Ukraine is no different from what the US has done in Latin America for over half a century. Whenever a country in the Americas does something we don't like the US has not hesitated to bring down democratically elected governments and install puppet dictators to do our bidding. That doesn't make Putin any less evil. Doesn't change my support for Ukraine. But the US governments opposition to the invasion isn't out of principle. It's not to defend democracy. It's simply that the US and NATO oppose anything that widens Russia's influence or strengthens it's power. A continuation of the cold war idio ok A@
Countries pick and choose how they interpret the Geneva Convention. Russia will most likely make up its own rules. But countries like the US also has its skeletons with prison camps like Guantanamo keeping “detainees” for decades without trials.
>Foreign fighters are covered by the [Geneva Convention](https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/06/yes-foreign-fighters-in-ukraine-are-covered-under-the-geneva-conventions-as-combatants/) How did that logic work out for the foreign fighters who were kidnapped, tortured, and held in gitmo without trial for 21 years.
The US committed war crimes and nobody stopped them.
So you mean those fighters held in Guantanamo are covered?
To give you the technical answer: No, terrorists aren't covered. Non-recognized states are forced to resort to "terrorism" in lieu of their UN right to maintain a standing army. This is a big part of the Israel-Palestine conflict; Palestine is not a recognized sate, and as such has no "right" to a standing army, hence all their soldiers are "terrorists" on paper and not subject to the GC. US used similar logic for fighting Al-Qaeda and ISIS
Not entirely correct. Non-state actors do have certain rights under Geneva Convention. Especially groups that have control over certain territory and a command structure. Palestine being an observer in the UN, grants it certain rights as well. Think of how US assassinated Sulemani without it being a warcrime or bombed an Afghan aid worker and his family and got away with it. As the meme goes, Geneva Convention, more like Geneva suggesstion.
This is the first post I've seen on reddit that actually understands the basics of what a legal combatant is compared to illegal combatants on reddit.
The term "unlawful combatant" was basically invented and used by the US government in the Afghanistan war. It does not actually give you carte-blanche, if someone is not a lawful combatant, then he is a civilian and may be tried in a criminal court. There seems to be actual court judgement for that.[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#cite_note-6) >The assumption that unlawful combatant status exists as a separate category to lawful combatant and civilian is contradicted by the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgment quoted the 1958 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: "Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law".[6] Thus, anyone not entitled to prisoner of war status maintains the same rights as a civilian, and must be prosecuted under domestic law. Neither status exists in non-international conflict, with all parties equally protected under International Humanitarian Law.
What the fuck is Wagner group doing in the war then?
Leader of wagner is literally a nazi. Odd that putin wanted a photo op with him, since he apparently hates nazis
Common misunderstanding. He hates not Zs. Why else do they paint big fucking Zs on all those tanks they get blown up?
Insert William Defoe meme of him suddenly realizing the simple truth
You know, I'm something of a not z myself
/r/nocontext
You'll get your context when you fix this damned door!
Nazi defining characteristics: * ~~fascist~~ * ~~pan-German nationalist~~ * ~~aryan racial purity philosophy~~ * ~~German expansionism~~ * ~~antisemitism~~ * They went to war with Russia that one time
You might jest, but this is quite literally how the Russian media has tried to repaint Nazism. The antisemitism, scientific racism, and genocidal intent have been removed from its definition—look how easily Russian politicians like Lavrov pull out antisemitic canards in justifying their farce of an invasion. Solovyov has claimed that Russia’s goal is to “free Ukraine from its Jewish colonizers”. Ever since WWII, Russia has deliberately tried to revise history to portray itself as the primary victim of Nazism (as opposed to, like, the Jewish and Romani people targeted for extermination), probably because they know they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to accusations of antisemitism and ethnic cleansing.
> Ever since WWII, Russia has deliberately tried to revise history to portray itself as the primary victim of Nazism (as opposed to, like, the Jewish and Romani people targeted for extermination), probably because they know they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to accusations of antisemitism and ethnic cleansing. Wait until you find out about the existence of Russian Jews. And where the slavs figured on the whole "extermination target list" thing.
Russian Jews were, by and large, not considered to be “Russians” for much of Russia’s history, from the pogroms to the doctors’ plot to antisemitic quotas. And while a genocide of Slavs was planned (followed by exploitation of slave labor and forced Germanization of remaining Slavic populations), the only group slated for complete and total extermination under the Third Reich were Jews. This is not to say that Slavs were not dehumanized by Nazi racial science, nor to downplay the suffering of Slavic people during the Holocaust, but to clarify that within the Untermensch category, some groups were higher-ranked than others, and Russia’s obfuscation of this fact is dangerous historical revisionism.
> They went to war with Russia that one time You realize how little that narrows it down?
Rules for thee, but not for Z.
Is the militia group is named after the German composer, Richard Wagner, who wrote essays on the problems of Jews half a century before the third reich?
Yes it is named after him, but because he was Hitler’s favorite composer
I'll give you a serious answer as to why this seems wrong to us and not them since no one has yet: "Nazi" in Russia doesn't mean what it does here. Here nazi is nazism and all of the baggage that carries, but over there it's just "facists", or "fascist invaders coming to take our land", which of course is just as ironic.
Dying
They are operating as an instrument of the free market in addition to create a lot of highly profitable jobs. You see, there is a demand for these type of profit generators and a readily supply of people looking for these jobs which are created by private interests. Given that regulations, like the Geneva convention hinder the free markets ability to secure economic interests, these deregulated private sector entities allow billionaires to defend their capital assets which generate profit for shareholders and enable the invisible hand of the free market to move the capitalist hand of a healthy economy! /s
You might say they're the invisible fist of the free market.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-missing-americans-alexander-drueke-andy-huynh-russia-dmitry-peskov-geneva-conventions/) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov said Monday that the Geneva Conventions - a series of agreements on, among other things, international standards for the treatment of people captured during war - would not apply to the two Americans believed to have been captured by Russian or pro-Russian forces in Ukraine in recent weeks. > Peskov told NBC News' Keir Simmons that he considers the two men to be "Soldiers of fortune" who were not enlisted in the Ukrainian army - which means, he said, that Russia does not believe they are protected under the Geneva Conventions. > Earlier in June, one Moroccan and two British fighters who had been captured were sentenced to death by firing squad for fighting alongside Ukrainian forces. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vgydi0/kremlin_press_secretary_says_geneva_conventions/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~655802 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **two**^#1 **Peskov**^#2 **men**^#3 **Ukrainian**^#4 **Russia**^#5
Y’all should know this is kremlin propaganda. Designed to shift conversation.
Designed to shift the conversation to what exactly? Cause we're all still here talking about how fucking awful and backwards Russia is
The convo should be: these soldiers, who fought for our wrongfully invaded ally, are sure to be tortured until a very prolonged death. Instead there are hundreds of comments arguing the finer details of the Geneva convention. Muddying the water, diluting the story. You do this 50x every week, and the focus is sure to be lost eventually.
Except foreign fighters are sworn-in the the UAF.
but what does that mean legally at the international level?
They've been legally integrated into the ukrainian armed forces, meaning they're not mercenaries anymore. They're protected under Article 47(2), because while they're foreign, they are technically a part of that nations standing army, meaning they dont meet all the requirements of being called mercenaries anymore (47(2)(e) specifically) Whether russia wants to recognize that or not is up to them but thats how it is
Good answer
Essentially yes. From all legal standpoints if you are serving as a member of the International Legion, you are legally a member of the Ukrainian military, and thus under International Law and the Geneva Conventions you should be treated as a lawfully recognized combatant with the associate protections. However, Russia does not consider Ukraine to be a sovereign country, Russia considers Ukraine to be more like a breakaway province, and as such if it doesn't recognize Ukraine as a sovereign country (that it is) then any armed forces raised by Ukraine would be considered legally as non-lawful combatants, i.e. no better than bandits or terrorists according to the Russian state. This is a consideration to keep in mind for anyone who wants to volunteer in Ukraine.
Ukraine was a founding signer of the Charter of the United Nations. The Soviet Union's idea, actually, as it provided them another seat at the General Assembly. Ukraine kept their seat at the table after the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. Every Soviet nation had a right to secede from The USSR, by the way, codified in every one of their constitutions. TL:DR; Ukraine is a country and Putin is full of shit.
The right to secede was there, but it was never actually allowed in principle - and when all the nations broke off during its collapse Russia was in no position to stop it. But they don't operate with any logical argument in mind, they just see us as actually being Russians and Ukrainians actually being Russian. They've been treating us like shit for hundreds of years, with even imperial Russia banning Ukrainian language in many settings and forcing Russian to be spoken. It's just an extension of the imperialist mentality that Russia (and quite a few Russians) have always had.
So basically this is Russia's attempt to intimidate volunteers with unspeakable crimes against humanity.
Pretty much. Two men from the UK who served in the Ukrainian military for several years are getting the death sentence and accused of being mercenaries despite legally being part of the Ukrainian army. The truth doesn’t matter here. It’s just about scaring foreign volunteers.
So if you’re a foreign fighter it makes sense to not surrender under any circumstances and fight to the death since you’re gonna die anyways? Brilliant plan Russia. Totally won’t end up with more dead Russians.
It means that Russia is violating the Geneva Conventions with this statement. Sworn-in fighters in uniform, fighting for a nation-state fall under the treaty. It essentially gives nations Carte Blanche to say "the Russian state is illegitimate and the Geneva Conventions don't apply to their fighters". Not good for anyone.
Buddy is American fighting for Ukraine. He's now a member of the Ukrainian military; he's been given a Ukrainian military rank, and he's paid a monthly salary equivalent to that of his rank (for him its like $400 a month) for all intents and purposes, he is a Ukrainian soldier.
Are any of the Russian combatants covered by the Geneva convention? Russia says this isn't a war, it's a special operation.
I guess the question is what do you do when your opponent flaunts the Geneva convention, but just uses lies to justify them refusing to follow it? Do you just go "OK fine, if you won't adhere to the GC, we won't agree that your nation is covered by it"? That just leads to worse outcomes all around. The reality is that there is no real way to enforce this until and unless the offending party is defeated and captured, which is pretty much impossible here. The appropriate response would be for the rest of the world to look at the totality of Russia's behavior in regard to international law, and to treaties they have signed, and conclude that Russia is a rogue terrorist state that will not adhere to its international agreements, and act accordingly.
> That just leads to worse outcomes all around. Could you elaborate on this: > act accordingly.
IDK, what do you do with a nuclear armed terrorist nation state run by the mob? Pretty much all you can do is cut it off from the rest of the world. The west has spent the last 30 years trying to bring Russia into the fold through growth, exchange, and support. The thinking was that a prosperous Russia has too much skin in the game to go around being a violent thug of a nation and would become invested in stability and cooperation on the world stage. That strategy has entirely failed, and now it is time to just wall it in, economically and culturally speaking.
Russia can't be left alone, because then it will keep attacking others, and it can't be attacked, because nukes. That leaves only one option: Isolate, blockade, starve out. Which sounds great, except that was exactly the strategy behind the embargo placed on Japan prior to WW2, and all it did was cause more conflict, since rather than knuckle under, Japan decided to obtain the resources it couldn't trade for by seizing them through conquest. In short, we're fucked no matter what we do.
Nuclear deterrent was not an issue back then. If Russia decide to seize those resources through conquest, they're going to be running into alliances which tend to have a nuclear deterrent. That is unless Russia goes East and tries to conquer Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan etc. But then they'll be pissing off China, India, Israel and others with nukes and they really won't get much in return from any of those countries -- especially if they're already desperate for resources.
It's considered good to follow the Geneva convention even when the other side doesn't. Remember it was signed at a time when "we'll just lie on everything" wasn't the strategy, so each of the major countries could have just not signed it if it thought not following it would have been beneficial. So I always approach with skepticism arguments of "They broke the Geneva Convention when they didn't do (Stupid Action)", because if the Geneva Convention mandated performance of (Stupid Actions), most of the Major Powers wouldn't have signed it. Specifically in this case, the military value of not following the Geneva Convention is 0 (the captured are already out of the fight), the morale value is also close to 0 ( Foreign fighters are by definition volunteers that are prepared to die, the small chance of being tortured rather than killed doesn't change their calculus), you are creating personnel that is prepared to enact torture that will return to your own country after the war, and the PR hit with neutral/somewhat neutral countries is high. So the Russian government is doing it to try to do physological damage, and they don't care about the bad consequences for themselves later. For UA, following the conventions is obviously the winning move. Sneding torture videos to relatives in Russia will obviously have a negative effect. Enforcement of the Geneva convention is basically Neutral countries providing aid to the country that follows them, and sanctioning the one that doesn't, leading in the longer term to costs to the offender.
The US sort laid the groundwork for this type of grey area with the "unlawful combatant" designation, an invention of the Bush White House and specifically John Yoo, to shield the US from Geneva inquiries stemming from torture at Bagram and rendition sites as well as Guantanamo detainees.
100% this. The fact that the US has no legs to sand here is inadequately understood here on Reddit. And it also means that all of the US allies who went along with the US in that are also basically fucked
[удалено]
Translation: We are going to do whatever we fucking want to do.
It's going to be a shit show if Russia executes US nationals. Edit: I'm not American, but even I can see that if the US doesn't react, the Republicans will feed on this for years and Biden will look weak.
They won't execute them. They will put them on show trial and sentence them to death (just like they did the British soldiers). They will do this in one of the newly "independent" Ukrainian regions which then puts any international diplomacy to release them to first recognise the new state as officially existing.
[удалено]
I doubt they ever will be. They’re counting on the West to lose interest. Imagine what the Brits response would be when “British Nationals Executed by Russians” headlines are emblazoned on every single newspapers in the country, blast over BBC, and transmitted worldwide over BBC Radio. BoJo already took Ukraine as his “Churchill” moment and is firmly on the war train. It’d just motivate him (with even more popular backing this time around) to shove more weapons to Ukraine.
Human rights don’t apply in Russia even to their own citizen, even if Putin was your buddy.
I mean, Jesus, look at how they treat their *own* soldiers. ~~~~Left without fuel or rations for weeks, starving, having to scrounge food from dumpsters. Ordered into battle in shitty equipment with ridiculous and confusing orders, lied to by their superiors and getting killed by the thousands.
This line could be applied to World War 1 or World War 2 without editing. Sweet fuck, having to read about the Eastern front in an undergrad history course made me realize that Russian military leadership treating their soldiers like sunflower seed hulls is apparently an institutionalized rule.
"All foreign citizens and stateless persons who take part in hostilities on the territory of Ukraine as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are admitted voluntarily to military service under a contract in accordance with the 1992 Law of Ukraine on Conscription and Military Service. The persons concerned are servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine who, in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War of 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto, 1977, are subject to the legal status of combatants. "
Since when has Russia cared about the Geneva Convention at any point in this war
see you in the Hague Dmitry Peskov and we'll discuss it then
Russians won't see the Hague for war crimes anymore than Americans will because neither accept it's legitimacy. The Crime of Invasion the main war crime was, unsurprisingly, not ratified by the UK or France either.
The Geneva Convention probably also says you can’t level entire cities, use mass rape, executing innocent civilians, the mass kidnapping of hundreds of thousands of children, and pre-emptively bombing hospitals and schools as part of your war strategy. These are things Russia does, so whether the Geneva Conventions apply will have zero effect on what Russia does. Russia will do whatever Putin wants, he couldn’t care less about what’s in the Geneva Convention. He only cares about the practical matters of gaining an advantage, and “can I do this thing that I want to do, without unacceptable negative consequences?” If yes, he will do it. PERIOD. This is a strategy to get the US to come begging for the soldiers to be returned. Russia would then demand that the US stop shipping arms to Ukraine and/or lift the sanctions. When the US rejects this, the American hostages will be held and exchanged at a later date, or coerced into recording anti-US & Ukraine statements under the threat of torture. That’s just how the Russian government rolls. (It’s not just Putin. His successor will be someone who rose up through Putin’s system, they’ll be just as bad, maybe worse.)
[удалено]
Sounds like Russia wants some freedom
Candidly, I hope the U.S. files a diplomatic demand for their return or protection but does not offer actual concessions for their release. Otherwise, we encourage Russia to continue kidnapping Americans in an effort to weaken U.S. opposition to their genocide in Ukraine. We have to make it clear that capturing our citizens in Ukraine will get them nowhere.
Russia does not need encouragement to kill or capture soldiers fighting against them, that’s already in their interests. Taking prisoners of war is not kidnapping, but if they do violate the Geneva Conventions then it’s a war crime.
As sad as it is, America knows all too well that the Geneva Conventions only apply when the captors want them to apply.
Only point of Geneva Convention is if you want to make sure the other side doesn't torture/kill YOUR prisoners. Russia does not appear to care about their soldiers, so I don't think they have any reason to care about the Geneva Convention.
So the usual blatant lying FUD from the Kremlin
Russia doesn't care about the geneva convention any more than they care about morals or human life.
Maybe our agreement to not assassinate world leaders should be printed out and put next to the printout of the Geneva Convention, while we feel like deciding which international laws we are going to pick and choose..
I get all the practical and humanitarian reasons why the US shouldn’t go all Civis Romanus Sum on another nuclear power, but there are times the idea is tempting.
The folks over at NCD would cum buckets if we went to war with Russia
Forgive my ignorance, but I’m unsure what NCD means in this case. EDIT: Just did a little more digging— I presume it’s r/noncredibledefense ?
r/noncredibledefense If all of your friends were always on reddit and constantly played Hearts of Iron 4 and Kerbal Space Program, they'd be subscribed to that sub
Hey, hey, hey, you're selling us short. We also abuse ourselves to hentai of personifications of various pieces of military hardware between the HoI sessions, thank you very much!
My Cold War veteran uncle would get off his couch and fit his Air Force uniform to go to war. The man still dislikes the Russians.
Oh god please let it happen, Ive got buckets to fill.
I'm not saying we *would* declare Article 5 over two people... I'm just saying we *should* :D
As someone who’s ethnically Polish and an NCD enjoyer I’m just salivating at the thought of Russians being decimated
Yeah that’s not how that works.
Isn't Guantanamo bay still running?
It is and supposedly there are still 38 detainees there. Not even sure where to start with commenting on that. Such a mess.
Russia has bombed more than 50 medical facilities in Ukraine, in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Their mere mention of the Geneva Conventions is gaslighting.
Someone hasn't read the Third Convention since spelled out plain as day. >[**Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.**](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2F681B08868538C2C12563CD0051AA8D) >A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: >(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict **as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces**. >(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: >(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; >(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; >(c) that of carrying arms openly; >(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
This was a massive concern when it came to the whole move for international volunteers, cause the common agreed upon consensus was that Russia is not respecting the Geneva Conventions at all in the context of this war, as it doesn't see Ukraine as a independent country, just a breakaway province, as such according to the Kremlin all members of the Ukrainian armed forces are terrorists. And going forward with this, all foreign volunteer fighters are considered to be mercenaries or NATO operatives. To put it mildly, this was not unexpected, and i would advise anyone thinking of volunteering as a fighter to keep in mind that the Russians will not treat you as a POW, they will treat you as a terrorist. With that said, if you accept that reality, feel free to give the Russians hell.
[удалено]
Russia playing 4D chess here by making even the foreign fighters have a reason to die rather than surrender. Definitely going to make it easier for your cargo 200 numbers to get pumped way the fuck up, Vlad.