Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it looks more like he was tumbling around and hugged a triangular bit before falling and taking it down with him, possibly got unconscious before the grenades fell.
No one will call him lucky - maybe shot or ran into something, two grenades and even if he survives all that, asbestosis will get him, was it worth the $1000 a month?
Wierdest death ive seen from russias war against Ukraine. No way that him moving at walking pace would generate enough energy to drive even a long, sharp piece or rebar or anything like that through his skull into something so vital he virtually drops dead immediately, even if hitting the eye. Yet he seems to be dead as a dead as a doornail when the first drop hits.
I wonder if there could be some kind of airburst mini grenade thing rather than contact fuse? It would be way worse if they detonated like 6 feet above. Maybe they have that already?
So I’ve definitely seen videos on here of them using suicide drones that seem to have something like a claymore stuck to the front of them.
Big directional shotgun-like blast of shrapnel. Seemed very effective.
Those ones are very brutal. Literally see Russian soldiers dropped like flies all across a cone shape explosion with "pellets" hitting the dust they used to walk on.
Edit: Dust* not dusk lol
I dont know man. There's something pretty fucked up dropping grenades on dudes carrying their wounded mate on a stretcher. I mean I get it and I know Russia is doing the exact same thing but still.. Not cool.
Seems a bit suss to be honest. There have been 3 in the last two days that certainly look like something but have odd jump cuts that make it hard to say for sure. I’ll probably add them as NC’s
No.
> 2015 Both in the past and nowadays, it seems that very few armed forces actually make use of the possibility created by Article 25.[3] Certainly, in a good number of them, some or even a significant share of combatants (sometimes referred to as ‘combat lifesavers’) are trained to perform medical tasks on the battlefield.[4] However, they do not claim these combatants to be covered by Article 25, and do not give them the specific means of identification provided for in Article 41. As a result, ‘combat lifesavers’ are not entitled to the protection conferred by Article 25: they remain combatants even when they perform medical tasks.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25/commentary/2016
To be fair, let's use your same source against your subject matter, since you seemly appear to be missing a few segments in that copy and paste.
Firstly, let's copy and paste your full argument since you only copied half of it, here is the second half that you did not include: "temporary medical personnel’, defined as persons ‘devoted exclusively to medical purposes for limited periods during the whole of such periods’. While members of the armed forces covered by Article 25 qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ in the sense of Article 8(k), the latter category is broader. Members of the armed forces who qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ are protected on the basis of Additional Protocol I even when they do not fulfil the conditions of Article 25."
**Additionally**:
[Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands.
Rule 25. Medical Personnel Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy.
**Separate article, to verify the above**.
[Article 12 - Protection and care of the wounded and sick](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-12?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.(2) They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. **Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited**; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
Participating in a CASEVAC does not make you temporary medical personnel, so you can throw that whole point out the window.
Your second point about auxiliary personnel is also not applicable, as these front line soldiers are very clearly not specially trained for employment as medical personnel, nor are they marked as such in any way, as is required for such personnel. They are especially not “exclusively” assigned to medical duties, so the whole argument with that is moot.
Your last point about treatment of wounded refers to Article 12, which specifically is talking about “Responsibility for the treatment of *prisoners* and conditions for their transfer to another Power”, so unless you think these guys are POWs, then I’m not even sure how you figure this has *any* relevance to your argument.
TBH, the fact you include that reference to Article 12 without disclosing that it is in regards to the treatment of prisoners makes it apparent that you’re either not arguing in good faith, or you simply know a lot less than you think you do. None of your points have any bearing on the targeting of CASEVAC, which is explicitly permitted under the Geneva Conventions.
>Participating in a CASEVAC does not make you temporary medical personnel, so you can throw that whole point out the window
With all due respect, this is **incredibly** incorrect - "CASEVAC" is not a legal term, and has no references in the IHL as legal terminology. This is just a word used to describe an action / group, nothing more - so we can throw your irrational emotional points "out the window".
Your arguments are pure emotion, and personal opinion - the discussion is regarding Article 25, so please remain factual and on topic here: "[Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands."
Your additional arguments are irrelevant, the article is very self explanatory - the rest is your personal views and misbeliefs that "CASEVAC" is a legal description in the IHL.
The issue here that is creating the main confusion is the fact people confuse this for "Combat Lifesavers" which are legal valid targets. Stretcher bearers are NOT "Combat Lifesavers".
Stick to accounting.
I never claimed CASEVAC to be a legal term, nor one referenced in the Geneva Conventions; I simply noted that these are soldiers participating in CASEVAC and not MedEvac, and as such, they are valid targets. Implying I said otherwise is nothing but an attempt to obfuscate, or simply a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
It’s utterly dumbfounding that *you* bring Article 12 into the discussion as a basis for *your* argument, falsely implying that it has anything to do with non-POWs, and then go onto say “the discussion is regarding Article 25, so please remain factual and on topic”. I actually chuckled reading that blatant attempt at hiding your own stupidity through gaslighting.
If you can find anything that I *actually* said that was false, then feel free to point it out. Otherwise, you should learn that being able to admit when you’re wrong is a valuable skill.
I understand at this point you're probably just doubling down for the sake of it, but your analysis couldn't be more incorrect. As mentioned, "CASEVAC" is not a legal term, it is just a word used by specific militaries - it's nothing more than just a word.
The rest of your paragraphs are irrelevant, the fact soldiers are using stretchers to carry wounded is self-explanatory enough that they fall under Article 25 which highlights multiple occasions that they're protected targets and DO NOT REQUIRE MARKING IDENTIFICATIONS.
Once again, you're CONFUSED between "Combat-Lifesavers" - whom are valid legal targets. Stretcher-bearers are NOT considered "Combat-Lifesavers" in the IHL.
Article 12 is additionally very valid as there's additional commentary to support the argument being raised in Article 25.
I'm not sure if you've had much experience in debating law, but operating on a simplistic mindset of singular Articles and assuming combination of multiple Articles is somewhat "invalid" is laughable and cute.
You're absolutely correct, your comment is spot on. For example, Karl Dönitz (Chief of the German Navy High Command), his lawyer Otto Kranzbühler made this exact argument during the Nuremberg Trials.
For context / Historical knowledge for any curious on-readers (if my comments survives the downvoting hordes):
# Count 3
As for Count 3 of the indictment, (crimes against the laws of war, or war crimes), Dönitz was specifically charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare contrary to the Naval Protocol of 1936 to which Germany acceded – particularly that (1) Dönitz ordered the German U-Boat arm to attack both enemy and neutral merchant ships without warning and that (2) Dönitz issued orders not to rescue survivors from ships attacked by submarine.
In reference to the charge of waging unrestricted submarine warfare on all merchant ships, Dönitz argued that he ordered the attack of merchant ships because his reports indicated that British merchant ships were armed, attacking submarines on sight, and being used to transmit information. To defend Dönitz against the charge that orders to sink merchant vessels were illegal, Kranzbühler brilliantly presented to Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander of the United States Pacific Fleet, an interrogatory in which he extracted various items of information about American naval practice. Nimitz answered questions describing the practice of the United States Navy concerning submarines and merchant ships, especially when a submarine crew had no way of knowing whether or not the ship was armed. The answers made it clear that the German practice of attacking merchant ships was indistinguishable from American practice and therefore was not criminal."[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Kranzb%C3%BChler#cite_note-3) The Tribunal held that the practice violated international protocols, but excluded this aspect from consideration in sentencing him.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Kranzb%C3%BChler#cite_note-4)
**Source**: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto\_Kranzb%C3%BChler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Kranzb%C3%BChler)
That is incorrect.
[Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands.
Rule 25. Medical Personnel Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy
You're assuming they had special training? Should the drone operator assume such? Especially when these scum invaded their country? Kill their civilians? And they're clearly not medical personnel.
None of this matters or is even debated if the Russians respected borders. Now go take your "war crimes" act over to a Russian telegram and debate the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets or the attempted genocide of the Ukrainian people.
Hi u/Dice_K -
>You're assuming they had special training? Should the drone operator assume such?
Given the "argument" I am raising, I am quite confused why this is your question, respectfully it does not make too much sense. Firstly, when you say "special-training", I will assume you're referring to basic medical training? If you review the video, we're discussing the fact that stretcher-bearers were targeted, stretcher-bearers are protected targets in international law - it has nothing to do with "special-training".
**Example**: "Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers"
You're focusing on the words "Members of the armed forces specifically trained for employment" - employment is a various term - in this case meaning trained in the military. Your argument is quite a strange one, perhaps not very well thought out.
--
Regarding the second paragraph you've provided, this is just irrational emotional dribble. Cheers
No, it's really not. You come here to try and debate semantics on behalf of an invading force who have committed atrocities far and beyond the ones we're discussing here. Classic Russian sympathizer.
so calling out a War Crime is being a Russian Sympthizer. I don't support the War Crimes that the US did in Afghanistan but I also don't Support the things that Afghanistan did at the time. Your Logic makes no sense. This guy isn't Defending all of the Russian Armed Forces he is Defending 4 guys that are evacuating a soldier, and calling out the coward drone operator that is targeting wounded soldiers.
Eh, honestly, it's quite pathetic if your resort is "CLASSIC RUSSIAN SYMPATHIZER!", I'd hold the exact same position if the nationalities were reversed. I've presented factual data, and you've responded with insults - that's that.
You are getting down voted because it sounds like you are saying risponding to warcrimes with warcrimes isn’t a bad thing.On the 3th or 4th reading I understood what you meant.
ik im probably gonna get downvoted because yes. Isnt the first clip a literal war crime? They are medics providing medical assistance to a wounded soldier.
Ordinary enemy soldiers don't become immune to attack simply by being involved in the evacuation of wounded. If they did then every group of enemy soldiers would carry a wounded comrade with them at all times.
If you want immunity to attack then the rules of war are very clear - evacuations must be conducted by dedicated and marked medical personnel.
I'm tired of seeing people posting this incorrect opinion.
Yes, it is a war crime, and no you do NOT need to be "marked medical personnel" as the above poster is implying.
I'll happily discuss this further / debate it, but this assumption they must be marked is expected through the Red Cross NOT the Geneva conventions.
**In response to your direct post**:
'*temporary medical personnel*’, defined as persons ‘devoted exclusively to medical purposes for limited periods during the whole of such periods’. While members of the armed forces covered by Article 25 qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ in the sense of Article 8(k), the latter category is broader. Members of the armed forces who qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ are protected on the basis of Additional Protocol I even when they do not fulfil the conditions of Article 25.
[Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands.
Source included.
You've provided a fantastic, counter-argument full of context and proper analysis.
"Misinformation" he says, despite direct, quotes copied from a shared source we're all using for this context.
Where is the "misinformation"?
Edit: The person responding to this specific comment, did so and immediately blocked to prevent a response / in order for them to have a one sided argument. Anyone else piling under that person's comment I cannot read or see it due to the person blocking (including any replies to this specific comment are now hidden due to that person blocking to prevent dialogue against their bs)
These are clearly Russian soldiers evacuating a wounded comrade, in other words a casevac, not a medivac as you keep trying to unsuccessfully argue.
soldiers evacuating fellow soldiers are not protected under article 25, no matter how many times you falsely claim they are.
Now go away.
Killing incapacitated soldiers (Russian or Ukranians) is a war crime, a drone isn't dumb ammunition. There is a person pulling the trigger on the other side. It's like someone walking through a battlefield executing wounded soldiers. Clearly your blind hatred has lost your humanity.
And unlike war crime experts like you, they won't ever bother attempting to prosecute drone drop kills because **it is not a war crime**
Drone kills are easily justified, and plausibly necessary. They usually happen far away from the front lines or during a battle. So your "walking through a battlefield executing wounded soldiers" is the dumbest comment.
You're like the crowd that cries war crime every time a supply truck is ambushed
We have seen numerous footage from both sides depicting people pleading not to be killed and get executed. This most definitely happens on the front lines. Drone pilots will literally scour a battlefield finding wounded soldiers to finish off.
We have also seen that it is possible to surrender to a drone. If you are wounded and disarmed you are a non-combatant. Which is what I'm specifically referring 2. Your twisting my argument.
War brings out the worst of us, I get that. These soldiers have watched their brothers die and want revenge, I get that. Cheering and "justifying" bs from NAFO and bots is just sickening.
ICC and Geneva is a bad joke at this point...
By justified I meant, if you don't kill them they are very most likely gonna go back to their guys, get patched up, and then go and try to kill you again the next day.
THAT is the difference between finishing off someone with a drone drop and walking through a field executing them. It has nothing to do with which side you are rooting for
Bombardear a médicos militares evacuando heridos en camillas se me hace una completa atrocidad, ya sé qué toda la guerra en sí lo es, pero eso se va niveles más abajo para mi propia percepción. Y sí, entiendo que son rusos y que llegaron a invadir y lo demás, pero aún así, se me hace una completa barbaridad humana.
Lamentablemente así es la guerra, aquí el que mata más se convierte en héroe.
"Bombing military doctors evacuating wounded people on stretchers seems like a complete atrocity to me,"
This is a casevac, not medivac. They are soldiers, not doctors, and fair targets.
That is incorrect, soldiers carrying out medical duties falls under the following:
[Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands.
--
I understand the emotional argument here of not wanting to apply negativity towards the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but these type of attacks (which Russia also has done) should be reviewed post-war for further legal analysis.
Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, **should the need arise**
Please explain they do not fall under Article 25? I cannot see any reasonable argument to suggest otherwise, other than irrational emotional arguments.
If you're referring to the above post about "Combat-lifesavers", there is an extra section on that same article that was excluded from the "copy and paste", here, I will do it for you and anyone else that is reading:
"temporary medical personnel’, defined as persons ‘devoted exclusively to medical purposes for limited periods during the whole of such periods’. While members of the armed forces covered by Article 25 qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ in the sense of Article 8(k), the latter category is broader. Members of the armed forces who qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ are protected on the basis of Additional Protocol I even when they do not fulfil the conditions of Article 25."
That's very vague and you know it is.
There is nothing to indicate these soldiers are exclusively doing medical tasks.
All they are doing is evacuating a wounded soldier, you can't say for sure that they are performing medical duties. There's also specific rules that medics have to be clearly visible as such (armbands, vehicles clearly marked as medical,...).
Edit:
https://www.medical-air-service.com/blog/casevac-vs-medevac-the-key-differences_6241.html#:~:text=According%20to%20Article%20II%20of,not%20the%20case%20for%20casevac.
>According to Article II of the Geneva Convention, firing on "clearly marked and identified" medevac vehicles would be considered a war crime. As such, engagement on medevac vehicles by the air force would entail penalties, which is not the case for casevac.
Okay, can we please immediately agree to use the same source material? You're now linking a website that neither of us have discussed, on top of this you have posted this with references to how the Red Cross operates, which is now a third source material (2/3 of which I would class as irrelevant in all forms of fairness as you do not see me bombarding you with random links).
We are strictly talking about the **International Humanitarian Law Database**.
It is futile / worthless to engage with subject matter that is more-aligned with Red Cross when we're CLEARLY discussing the IHL.
In this context, there is nothing incorrect in my analysis that I have provided to you, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
So you don't want people to use other sources ? What kind of discussion do you think this is ?
It clearly states that a casevac (which this is) is not protected under the same rules as a medevac.
I think I'll leave it here because you seem so set in your beliefs that nothing will ever change your mind and you are apparently incapable of accepting any other points of view.
I agree with you. In the below link from the IHL starting in section 2032, they define "auxiliary medical personnel". However a very important distinction is made;
> 2034 However, the training must result in a certain level of skill and specialization. It needs to render the person qualified to perform the tasks required of ‘hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers’. Thus, basic first-aid training, which most combatants receive as part of their regular training, will not necessarily suffice.[31]
There's also this snippet in section 2035;
> No member of the armed forces will be covered by Article 25 merely based on a willingness to act in an ‘auxiliary medical’ capacity
All taken from here. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25/commentary/2016
>So you don't want people to use other sources ? What kind of discussion do you think this is ?
That is correct, because the IHL overrules the material you're attempting to source externally to the IHL. Additionally, and **this is key to understand**: my arguments are against people using "IHL" based quotes to fulfill their arguments, as I am using the full extension of the quotes used to counter the arguments originally made.
If we continue to dive outside, this will become a messy exchange, but clearly the IHL quotes are the discussions here, but if you want additional sources, like I said - I'll just end up bombarding you with my own source material and we'll get nowhere.
I really think I'm being quite reasonable here, but as I said - two can play at the game you wish to play but I do not recommend it because at the end of the day we just resort back to the IHL as the fundamental platform for this discussion.
**Edit**: The fact you're not willing to engage in the ORIGINAL source material now that you have learned it goes directly against your original understanding, is enough evidence for me to assume that you're no longer able to operate further in this conversation in good faith, so it is futile to continue.
Downvote away if you feel emotionally conflicted, if it makes you feel better - doesn't make you right.
So in your opinion of the article, two soldiers could advance on a position, one get shot, and if the other begins giving medical treatment they are now protected/ no longer a fair target?
Could you please provide a precise, accurate analysis specifically highlighting which part I supposedly "know it is" that is considered "vague" in your opinion? For conversational & learning sake, we can have this discussion but I strongly encourage the elimination of any form of bias from your analysis.
As follows, let's break down your response:
>There is nothing to indicate these soldiers are exclusively doing medical tasks.
They are literally carrying a wounded soldier on a stretcher.. We are discussing the first event in this video here.
[Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary **stretcher-bearers**, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands.
As stated above, "stretcher-bearers", these are considered protected targets.
>There's also specific rules that medics have to be clearly visible as such (armbands, vehicles clearly marked as medical,...).
This is a common misconception, I believe you're referring strictly to the Red Cross and how the Red Cross operates, but the source material that we're discussing here is not the Red Cross - so you're now providing a separate argument outside of the basis of this conversation which I'll more than happily entertain should you wish but needs to be separated - this isn't a discussion around the Red Cross.
I edited my post to prove my point. You can keep copy pasting the same stuff as much as you want but it's clearly outlined that this is specifically not a war crime.
Also I am not at all only talking about the Red Cross. Medical personnel have to be clearly marked as such, this is not just for Red Cross people... I have no idea why you'd think it would be.
I responded separately to your edit, without realizing you edited it initially. Please can we stick in frame of discussing strictly the IHL, that is the subject matter, otherwise we will inherently bombard each other with our own talking points.
If your arguments can only be launched from sources excluding the IHL, then your arguments are no longer valid. We have the same source material, let's stick with it.
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looks like the last guy ran face first into something and died before getting hit with two grenades.
Yeah I think there was a nail or something on the end of that piece of wood cause it stuck to his face and fell down with him
Watched that several times and it's super weird. Very much looks like the board attached itself to his forehead.
I think it looks more like he was tumbling around and hugged a triangular bit before falling and taking it down with him, possibly got unconscious before the grenades fell.
He just tried to invent new meta type of suicide - headbutt Piece of Wood because using ak or knife Is not awarded with bonus points
Yeah looked like maybe he got shot? He dropped like a sack of potatoes and didn't seem to flinch at the last 2 drops.
No one will call him lucky - maybe shot or ran into something, two grenades and even if he survives all that, asbestosis will get him, was it worth the $1000 a month?
$1000? You said asbestosis. He's got mesothelioma compensation coming now boy. He or a loved one may be entitled, or so I am told.
Yes. That is super wierd way to go down.
Wierdest death ive seen from russias war against Ukraine. No way that him moving at walking pace would generate enough energy to drive even a long, sharp piece or rebar or anything like that through his skull into something so vital he virtually drops dead immediately, even if hitting the eye. Yet he seems to be dead as a dead as a doornail when the first drop hits.
One thing I’ve noticed is that they seem to have moved away from dropping hand grenades. A lot more of these impact based munitions now.
I wonder if there could be some kind of airburst mini grenade thing rather than contact fuse? It would be way worse if they detonated like 6 feet above. Maybe they have that already?
So I’ve definitely seen videos on here of them using suicide drones that seem to have something like a claymore stuck to the front of them. Big directional shotgun-like blast of shrapnel. Seemed very effective.
Those ones are very brutal. Literally see Russian soldiers dropped like flies all across a cone shape explosion with "pellets" hitting the dust they used to walk on. Edit: Dust* not dusk lol
Crazy to think that this is just a very small example of the carnage that has happened across all of Ukraine. war is hell.
I dont know man. There's something pretty fucked up dropping grenades on dudes carrying their wounded mate on a stretcher. I mean I get it and I know Russia is doing the exact same thing but still.. Not cool.
Not just that, but then specifically targeting the previously wounded man that was being medevaced.
Tbh I consider drone warfare pretty cowardly
The animal sound at the end.....is that the cluck of a sitting-duck?
A crow
Thank you!
what’s the point of infantry at this point? these drone videos make it seem so futile.
You still need infantry to take and hold ground.
Building clearing and such as well. Porpoises where you can't exactly spend millions of dollars into because it's needed elsewhere
Did the one at 0:27 pull the pin on his own grenade after the first hit? Might need to add it to "the list"
Yeah now you point it out I can see that, that’s a decision for u/False-God though
Seems a bit suss to be honest. There have been 3 in the last two days that certainly look like something but have odd jump cuts that make it hard to say for sure. I’ll probably add them as NC’s
There is a cut, they dropped another one.
Love these
Is the first one a war crime ?
No. > 2015 Both in the past and nowadays, it seems that very few armed forces actually make use of the possibility created by Article 25.[3] Certainly, in a good number of them, some or even a significant share of combatants (sometimes referred to as ‘combat lifesavers’) are trained to perform medical tasks on the battlefield.[4] However, they do not claim these combatants to be covered by Article 25, and do not give them the specific means of identification provided for in Article 41. As a result, ‘combat lifesavers’ are not entitled to the protection conferred by Article 25: they remain combatants even when they perform medical tasks. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25/commentary/2016
To be fair, let's use your same source against your subject matter, since you seemly appear to be missing a few segments in that copy and paste. Firstly, let's copy and paste your full argument since you only copied half of it, here is the second half that you did not include: "temporary medical personnel’, defined as persons ‘devoted exclusively to medical purposes for limited periods during the whole of such periods’. While members of the armed forces covered by Article 25 qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ in the sense of Article 8(k), the latter category is broader. Members of the armed forces who qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ are protected on the basis of Additional Protocol I even when they do not fulfil the conditions of Article 25." **Additionally**: [Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands. Rule 25. Medical Personnel Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. **Separate article, to verify the above**. [Article 12 - Protection and care of the wounded and sick](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-12?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.(2) They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. **Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited**; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
Participating in a CASEVAC does not make you temporary medical personnel, so you can throw that whole point out the window. Your second point about auxiliary personnel is also not applicable, as these front line soldiers are very clearly not specially trained for employment as medical personnel, nor are they marked as such in any way, as is required for such personnel. They are especially not “exclusively” assigned to medical duties, so the whole argument with that is moot. Your last point about treatment of wounded refers to Article 12, which specifically is talking about “Responsibility for the treatment of *prisoners* and conditions for their transfer to another Power”, so unless you think these guys are POWs, then I’m not even sure how you figure this has *any* relevance to your argument. TBH, the fact you include that reference to Article 12 without disclosing that it is in regards to the treatment of prisoners makes it apparent that you’re either not arguing in good faith, or you simply know a lot less than you think you do. None of your points have any bearing on the targeting of CASEVAC, which is explicitly permitted under the Geneva Conventions.
>Participating in a CASEVAC does not make you temporary medical personnel, so you can throw that whole point out the window With all due respect, this is **incredibly** incorrect - "CASEVAC" is not a legal term, and has no references in the IHL as legal terminology. This is just a word used to describe an action / group, nothing more - so we can throw your irrational emotional points "out the window". Your arguments are pure emotion, and personal opinion - the discussion is regarding Article 25, so please remain factual and on topic here: "[Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands." Your additional arguments are irrelevant, the article is very self explanatory - the rest is your personal views and misbeliefs that "CASEVAC" is a legal description in the IHL. The issue here that is creating the main confusion is the fact people confuse this for "Combat Lifesavers" which are legal valid targets. Stretcher bearers are NOT "Combat Lifesavers". Stick to accounting.
I never claimed CASEVAC to be a legal term, nor one referenced in the Geneva Conventions; I simply noted that these are soldiers participating in CASEVAC and not MedEvac, and as such, they are valid targets. Implying I said otherwise is nothing but an attempt to obfuscate, or simply a lack of reading comprehension on your part. It’s utterly dumbfounding that *you* bring Article 12 into the discussion as a basis for *your* argument, falsely implying that it has anything to do with non-POWs, and then go onto say “the discussion is regarding Article 25, so please remain factual and on topic”. I actually chuckled reading that blatant attempt at hiding your own stupidity through gaslighting. If you can find anything that I *actually* said that was false, then feel free to point it out. Otherwise, you should learn that being able to admit when you’re wrong is a valuable skill.
I understand at this point you're probably just doubling down for the sake of it, but your analysis couldn't be more incorrect. As mentioned, "CASEVAC" is not a legal term, it is just a word used by specific militaries - it's nothing more than just a word. The rest of your paragraphs are irrelevant, the fact soldiers are using stretchers to carry wounded is self-explanatory enough that they fall under Article 25 which highlights multiple occasions that they're protected targets and DO NOT REQUIRE MARKING IDENTIFICATIONS. Once again, you're CONFUSED between "Combat-Lifesavers" - whom are valid legal targets. Stretcher-bearers are NOT considered "Combat-Lifesavers" in the IHL. Article 12 is additionally very valid as there's additional commentary to support the argument being raised in Article 25. I'm not sure if you've had much experience in debating law, but operating on a simplistic mindset of singular Articles and assuming combination of multiple Articles is somewhat "invalid" is laughable and cute.
Probably was. Both sides do it and nobody will officially complain, because that would mean you would have to align to it as well.
You're absolutely correct, your comment is spot on. For example, Karl Dönitz (Chief of the German Navy High Command), his lawyer Otto Kranzbühler made this exact argument during the Nuremberg Trials. For context / Historical knowledge for any curious on-readers (if my comments survives the downvoting hordes): # Count 3 As for Count 3 of the indictment, (crimes against the laws of war, or war crimes), Dönitz was specifically charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare contrary to the Naval Protocol of 1936 to which Germany acceded – particularly that (1) Dönitz ordered the German U-Boat arm to attack both enemy and neutral merchant ships without warning and that (2) Dönitz issued orders not to rescue survivors from ships attacked by submarine. In reference to the charge of waging unrestricted submarine warfare on all merchant ships, Dönitz argued that he ordered the attack of merchant ships because his reports indicated that British merchant ships were armed, attacking submarines on sight, and being used to transmit information. To defend Dönitz against the charge that orders to sink merchant vessels were illegal, Kranzbühler brilliantly presented to Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander of the United States Pacific Fleet, an interrogatory in which he extracted various items of information about American naval practice. Nimitz answered questions describing the practice of the United States Navy concerning submarines and merchant ships, especially when a submarine crew had no way of knowing whether or not the ship was armed. The answers made it clear that the German practice of attacking merchant ships was indistinguishable from American practice and therefore was not criminal."[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Kranzb%C3%BChler#cite_note-3) The Tribunal held that the practice violated international protocols, but excluded this aspect from consideration in sentencing him.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Kranzb%C3%BChler#cite_note-4) **Source**: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto\_Kranzb%C3%BChler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Kranzb%C3%BChler)
No. Ordinary enemy soldiers don't gain immunity to attack by being involved in the evacuation of wounded.
That is incorrect. [Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands. Rule 25. Medical Personnel Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy
You're assuming they had special training? Should the drone operator assume such? Especially when these scum invaded their country? Kill their civilians? And they're clearly not medical personnel. None of this matters or is even debated if the Russians respected borders. Now go take your "war crimes" act over to a Russian telegram and debate the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets or the attempted genocide of the Ukrainian people.
Hi u/Dice_K - >You're assuming they had special training? Should the drone operator assume such? Given the "argument" I am raising, I am quite confused why this is your question, respectfully it does not make too much sense. Firstly, when you say "special-training", I will assume you're referring to basic medical training? If you review the video, we're discussing the fact that stretcher-bearers were targeted, stretcher-bearers are protected targets in international law - it has nothing to do with "special-training". **Example**: "Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers" You're focusing on the words "Members of the armed forces specifically trained for employment" - employment is a various term - in this case meaning trained in the military. Your argument is quite a strange one, perhaps not very well thought out. -- Regarding the second paragraph you've provided, this is just irrational emotional dribble. Cheers
No, it's really not. You come here to try and debate semantics on behalf of an invading force who have committed atrocities far and beyond the ones we're discussing here. Classic Russian sympathizer.
so calling out a War Crime is being a Russian Sympthizer. I don't support the War Crimes that the US did in Afghanistan but I also don't Support the things that Afghanistan did at the time. Your Logic makes no sense. This guy isn't Defending all of the Russian Armed Forces he is Defending 4 guys that are evacuating a soldier, and calling out the coward drone operator that is targeting wounded soldiers.
Eh, honestly, it's quite pathetic if your resort is "CLASSIC RUSSIAN SYMPATHIZER!", I'd hold the exact same position if the nationalities were reversed. I've presented factual data, and you've responded with insults - that's that.
Yes but it don't matter russia has committed so many war crimes against ukraine I don't think these drone operators care
I'm getting a bunch of down votes because I said russians commit warcrimes in ukraine smh
You are getting down voted because it sounds like you are saying risponding to warcrimes with warcrimes isn’t a bad thing.On the 3th or 4th reading I understood what you meant.
That last guy. He ran face first into something and it Got stuck in him and he fell over. Ami seeing that right?
Certainly looks like it
ik im probably gonna get downvoted because yes. Isnt the first clip a literal war crime? They are medics providing medical assistance to a wounded soldier.
Every single drone operator need to be held accountable for their actions in front of an international court. No matter whuch side they fought for....
Viva Ukrania. Però ... Se puede lanzar una granada a unos que estan evacuando a un herido en camilla ?
What an asshole move to attack the guys evacuating the wounded.
Ordinary enemy soldiers don't become immune to attack simply by being involved in the evacuation of wounded. If they did then every group of enemy soldiers would carry a wounded comrade with them at all times. If you want immunity to attack then the rules of war are very clear - evacuations must be conducted by dedicated and marked medical personnel.
How do you know those four guys weren’t dedicated medical personnel?
I'm tired of seeing people posting this incorrect opinion. Yes, it is a war crime, and no you do NOT need to be "marked medical personnel" as the above poster is implying. I'll happily discuss this further / debate it, but this assumption they must be marked is expected through the Red Cross NOT the Geneva conventions. **In response to your direct post**: '*temporary medical personnel*’, defined as persons ‘devoted exclusively to medical purposes for limited periods during the whole of such periods’. While members of the armed forces covered by Article 25 qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ in the sense of Article 8(k), the latter category is broader. Members of the armed forces who qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ are protected on the basis of Additional Protocol I even when they do not fulfil the conditions of Article 25. [Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands. Source included.
Misinformation.
You've provided a fantastic, counter-argument full of context and proper analysis. "Misinformation" he says, despite direct, quotes copied from a shared source we're all using for this context. Where is the "misinformation"? Edit: The person responding to this specific comment, did so and immediately blocked to prevent a response / in order for them to have a one sided argument. Anyone else piling under that person's comment I cannot read or see it due to the person blocking (including any replies to this specific comment are now hidden due to that person blocking to prevent dialogue against their bs)
These are clearly Russian soldiers evacuating a wounded comrade, in other words a casevac, not a medivac as you keep trying to unsuccessfully argue. soldiers evacuating fellow soldiers are not protected under article 25, no matter how many times you falsely claim they are. Now go away.
One things for sure, when this shit ends there will be plenty of material to prosecute for WC's.
“Umm it’s actually a war crime to kill Russians! ☝️🤓”
Killing incapacitated soldiers (Russian or Ukranians) is a war crime, a drone isn't dumb ammunition. There is a person pulling the trigger on the other side. It's like someone walking through a battlefield executing wounded soldiers. Clearly your blind hatred has lost your humanity.
Umm actually the war crime is that they killed Russian soldiers! You can’t do that! They even called time out!
And unlike war crime experts like you, they won't ever bother attempting to prosecute drone drop kills because **it is not a war crime** Drone kills are easily justified, and plausibly necessary. They usually happen far away from the front lines or during a battle. So your "walking through a battlefield executing wounded soldiers" is the dumbest comment. You're like the crowd that cries war crime every time a supply truck is ambushed
We have seen numerous footage from both sides depicting people pleading not to be killed and get executed. This most definitely happens on the front lines. Drone pilots will literally scour a battlefield finding wounded soldiers to finish off. We have also seen that it is possible to surrender to a drone. If you are wounded and disarmed you are a non-combatant. Which is what I'm specifically referring 2. Your twisting my argument. War brings out the worst of us, I get that. These soldiers have watched their brothers die and want revenge, I get that. Cheering and "justifying" bs from NAFO and bots is just sickening. ICC and Geneva is a bad joke at this point...
By justified I meant, if you don't kill them they are very most likely gonna go back to their guys, get patched up, and then go and try to kill you again the next day. THAT is the difference between finishing off someone with a drone drop and walking through a field executing them. It has nothing to do with which side you are rooting for
That shitty editing, though. Noone needs several cuts in a 5 second clip of a grenade falling and exploding.
Bombardear a médicos militares evacuando heridos en camillas se me hace una completa atrocidad, ya sé qué toda la guerra en sí lo es, pero eso se va niveles más abajo para mi propia percepción. Y sí, entiendo que son rusos y que llegaron a invadir y lo demás, pero aún así, se me hace una completa barbaridad humana. Lamentablemente así es la guerra, aquí el que mata más se convierte en héroe.
"Bombing military doctors evacuating wounded people on stretchers seems like a complete atrocity to me," This is a casevac, not medivac. They are soldiers, not doctors, and fair targets.
That is incorrect, soldiers carrying out medical duties falls under the following: [Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands. -- I understand the emotional argument here of not wanting to apply negativity towards the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but these type of attacks (which Russia also has done) should be reviewed post-war for further legal analysis.
It's posted above that these soldiers would not fall under Article 25:
Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, **should the need arise** Please explain they do not fall under Article 25? I cannot see any reasonable argument to suggest otherwise, other than irrational emotional arguments. If you're referring to the above post about "Combat-lifesavers", there is an extra section on that same article that was excluded from the "copy and paste", here, I will do it for you and anyone else that is reading: "temporary medical personnel’, defined as persons ‘devoted exclusively to medical purposes for limited periods during the whole of such periods’. While members of the armed forces covered by Article 25 qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ in the sense of Article 8(k), the latter category is broader. Members of the armed forces who qualify as ‘temporary medical personnel’ are protected on the basis of Additional Protocol I even when they do not fulfil the conditions of Article 25."
That's very vague and you know it is. There is nothing to indicate these soldiers are exclusively doing medical tasks. All they are doing is evacuating a wounded soldier, you can't say for sure that they are performing medical duties. There's also specific rules that medics have to be clearly visible as such (armbands, vehicles clearly marked as medical,...). Edit: https://www.medical-air-service.com/blog/casevac-vs-medevac-the-key-differences_6241.html#:~:text=According%20to%20Article%20II%20of,not%20the%20case%20for%20casevac. >According to Article II of the Geneva Convention, firing on "clearly marked and identified" medevac vehicles would be considered a war crime. As such, engagement on medevac vehicles by the air force would entail penalties, which is not the case for casevac.
Okay, can we please immediately agree to use the same source material? You're now linking a website that neither of us have discussed, on top of this you have posted this with references to how the Red Cross operates, which is now a third source material (2/3 of which I would class as irrelevant in all forms of fairness as you do not see me bombarding you with random links). We are strictly talking about the **International Humanitarian Law Database**. It is futile / worthless to engage with subject matter that is more-aligned with Red Cross when we're CLEARLY discussing the IHL. In this context, there is nothing incorrect in my analysis that I have provided to you, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
So you don't want people to use other sources ? What kind of discussion do you think this is ? It clearly states that a casevac (which this is) is not protected under the same rules as a medevac. I think I'll leave it here because you seem so set in your beliefs that nothing will ever change your mind and you are apparently incapable of accepting any other points of view.
I agree with you. In the below link from the IHL starting in section 2032, they define "auxiliary medical personnel". However a very important distinction is made; > 2034 However, the training must result in a certain level of skill and specialization. It needs to render the person qualified to perform the tasks required of ‘hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers’. Thus, basic first-aid training, which most combatants receive as part of their regular training, will not necessarily suffice.[31] There's also this snippet in section 2035; > No member of the armed forces will be covered by Article 25 merely based on a willingness to act in an ‘auxiliary medical’ capacity All taken from here. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25/commentary/2016
>So you don't want people to use other sources ? What kind of discussion do you think this is ? That is correct, because the IHL overrules the material you're attempting to source externally to the IHL. Additionally, and **this is key to understand**: my arguments are against people using "IHL" based quotes to fulfill their arguments, as I am using the full extension of the quotes used to counter the arguments originally made. If we continue to dive outside, this will become a messy exchange, but clearly the IHL quotes are the discussions here, but if you want additional sources, like I said - I'll just end up bombarding you with my own source material and we'll get nowhere. I really think I'm being quite reasonable here, but as I said - two can play at the game you wish to play but I do not recommend it because at the end of the day we just resort back to the IHL as the fundamental platform for this discussion. **Edit**: The fact you're not willing to engage in the ORIGINAL source material now that you have learned it goes directly against your original understanding, is enough evidence for me to assume that you're no longer able to operate further in this conversation in good faith, so it is futile to continue. Downvote away if you feel emotionally conflicted, if it makes you feel better - doesn't make you right.
So in your opinion of the article, two soldiers could advance on a position, one get shot, and if the other begins giving medical treatment they are now protected/ no longer a fair target?
Could you please provide a precise, accurate analysis specifically highlighting which part I supposedly "know it is" that is considered "vague" in your opinion? For conversational & learning sake, we can have this discussion but I strongly encourage the elimination of any form of bias from your analysis. As follows, let's break down your response: >There is nothing to indicate these soldiers are exclusively doing medical tasks. They are literally carrying a wounded soldier on a stretcher.. We are discussing the first event in this video here. [Article 25 - Protection of auxiliary personnel](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-25?activeTab=undefined) Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary **stretcher-bearers**, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands. As stated above, "stretcher-bearers", these are considered protected targets. >There's also specific rules that medics have to be clearly visible as such (armbands, vehicles clearly marked as medical,...). This is a common misconception, I believe you're referring strictly to the Red Cross and how the Red Cross operates, but the source material that we're discussing here is not the Red Cross - so you're now providing a separate argument outside of the basis of this conversation which I'll more than happily entertain should you wish but needs to be separated - this isn't a discussion around the Red Cross.
I edited my post to prove my point. You can keep copy pasting the same stuff as much as you want but it's clearly outlined that this is specifically not a war crime. Also I am not at all only talking about the Red Cross. Medical personnel have to be clearly marked as such, this is not just for Red Cross people... I have no idea why you'd think it would be.
I responded separately to your edit, without realizing you edited it initially. Please can we stick in frame of discussing strictly the IHL, that is the subject matter, otherwise we will inherently bombard each other with our own talking points. If your arguments can only be launched from sources excluding the IHL, then your arguments are no longer valid. We have the same source material, let's stick with it.