Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Duque de Bragança]

Hopefully this is the last time he dies.

Well, he is no Shamil Bassaev.

[Barrister]

So we did have the recent example of Ukrainian helicopters attacking a fuel depot in Belgorod, inside of Russia.  So the border is not inviolable.

Has Ukraine actually claimed that strike as theirs?

There was also the strike on Rostov at the start of the war, iirc.

They refused to confirm or deny.  I believe they also said 'the Russians said they destroyed our aircraft, so you'll have to ask them what happened'.

[viper37]

The Laws of Armed Conflict do not protect individuals or communities, but rather categories of people.  Different protections apply to civilians, medical personnel, prisoners of war, survivors of sunken ships, wounded enemy soldiers, etc.  If one side uses perfidy to exploit those protections for military advantage, their enemy need no longer provide those protections for that category.  If you move military supplies or soldiers using marked ambulances, for instance, then the enemy, when he discovers it, can freely target ambulances/medical personnel as you have forfeited the protections for them.  Same applies to  civilians engaging in warfare without taking the steps necessary for them to be considered combatants.

I don't think it's that clear cut...

Not protecting ambulance and civilians is different, imho, than actively targeting civilians, ambulances, hospitals.

Say, your enemy is hold up in a hospital and shooting at you.  Can you call an airstrike on the hospital knowing there are patients?  I don't think it's "allowed", that way.  You could certainly have an infantry squad invest the hospital to find the enemy combatants, but I am unlikely leveling the whole district wouldn't be considered as a war crime.

Using ambulance to move weapons does not mean it can be allowed to target ambulances in any conditions.  But it would be reasonable to shoot an ambulance threateningly moving toward a checkpoint, or stop one you know is transporting weapons, or even order a drone strike if you suspect it's used by suicide bombers.  But simply targeting all ambulances because one was used in an attack?  Not too sure.  The Germans were accused of war crimes in France for killing civilians after the acts of the resistance.  I'm pretty sure the same principle applies today.

[viper37]

Are there some materiality standards for violations before protections can be lifted?  If some individual ambulance driver, on his own volition in violation of policies, chooses to give a secret ride to a couple of his drinking buddies armed with NLAWs, is every ambulance everywhere in Ukraine now a legitimate target after he's caught? 

If the government/leadership takes action to punish those violating the LoAC by abusing protections, then the protections hold.  That's what I recommended in the first post on this.  If the government/leadership does not discourage perfidy, it forfeits the protections.

In the specific case of Ukraine, it would be hard for the Ukrainian govt to have any control over what is happening in occupied zones, though.  Not promoting these acts through social medias, and even discouraging it would be feasible, but more than that is, imho, a burden too high for a government who has no effective control over a territory.

I also doubt that even after a city is being liberated that the government would be able to investigate properly on the actions of its citizens during the occupation.

[Barrister]

The Laws of Armed Conflict do not protect individuals or communities, but rather categories of people.  Different protections apply to civilians, medical personnel, prisoners of war, survivors of sunken ships, wounded enemy soldiers, etc.  If one side uses perfidy to exploit those protections for military advantage, their enemy need no longer provide those protections for that category.  If you move military supplies or soldiers using marked ambulances, for instance, then the enemy, when he discovers it, can freely target ambulances/medical personnel as you have forfeited the protections for them.  Same applies to  civilians engaging in warfare without taking the steps necessary for them to be considered combatants.

I don't think it's that clear cut...

Not protecting ambulance and civilians is different, imho, than actively targeting civilians, ambulances, hospitals.

Say, your enemy is hold up in a hospital and shooting at you.  Can you call an airstrike on the hospital knowing there are patients?  I don't think it's "allowed", that way.  You could certainly have an infantry squad invest the hospital to find the enemy combatants, but I am unlikely leveling the whole district wouldn't be considered as a war crime.

Using ambulance to move weapons does not mean it can be allowed to target ambulances in any conditions.  But it would be reasonable to shoot an ambulance threateningly moving toward a checkpoint, or stop one you know is transporting weapons, or even order a drone strike if you suspect it's used by suicide bombers.  But simply targeting all ambulances because one was used in an attack?  Not too sure.  The Germans were accused of war crimes in France for killing civilians after the acts of the resistance.  I'm pretty sure the same principle applies today.

Using my extensive knowledge from watching MASH, my understanding is that if you hide combatants within a hospital that makes it a valid military target.

Which is also any time a hospital is struck it's claimed to be hiding combatants.

[Jacob]

So apparently the Mexican government is pro-Putin: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mexico-russia-ukraine-obrador-putin-1.6409614

Disappointing.

[DGuller]

But not surprising.  AMLO let it be known a while ago that he's bad news all around.

[viper37]

So we did have the recent example of Ukrainian helicopters attacking a fuel depot in Belgorod, inside of Russia.  So the border is not inviolable.

Has Ukraine actually claimed that strike as theirs?

There was also the strike on Rostov at the start of the war, iirc.

They refused to confirm or deny.  I believe they also said 'the Russians said they destroyed our aircraft, so you'll have to ask them what happened'.

I think they denied it:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-war-april1-2022-1.6404889

It's not the most reliable of sources, but in international affairs, they ain't that bad.  

[viper37]

Well, what good is it having so many lawyers and they rely on the same sources as we, poor commoners? 

I don't know anything about that, but I would expect some gradation.  And striking an hospital, any place, where people may be unwilling participant strikes me as wrong.

[Barrister]

So we did have the recent example of Ukrainian helicopters attacking a fuel depot in Belgorod, inside of Russia.  So the border is not inviolable.

Has Ukraine actually claimed that strike as theirs?

There was also the strike on Rostov at the start of the war, iirc.

They refused to confirm or deny.  I believe they also said 'the Russians said they destroyed our aircraft, so you'll have to ask them what happened'.

I think they denied it:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-war-april1-2022-1.6404889

It's not the most reliable of sources, but in international affairs, they ain't that bad. 

From your article:

"For some reason they say that we did it, but in fact this does not correspond with reality," Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine's national security council, said on Ukrainian television.

Here's the BBC, which quotes the same Aleksiy Danilov, but then also quotes another Ukrainian defence spokesman:

Commenting on the oil depot blaze, Ukrainian defence ministry spokesman Oleksandr Motuzyanyk said Russian "aggression" was being resisted "on the territory of Ukraine".

"It does not mean that Ukraine has to bear responsibility for all those catastrophes and all those events that happen on the territory of the Russian Federation. This is not the first time we have seen such accusations. So, dear friends, I will neither confirm nor deny this information," he said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60952125

BBC article also anecdotally says that the author has seen Ukrainians fly these kind of ultra-low-level missions in the past.

[Barrister]

Well, what good is it having so many lawyers and they rely on the same sources as we, poor commoners? 

I don't know anything about that, but I would expect some gradation.  And striking an hospital, any place, where people may be unwilling participant strikes me as wrong.

Military rules of war are a particularly specialized area of law.  You'd need a JAG lawyer.

As I understand it though (and I am not a JAG lawyer) there's not really much in the way of gradation - something is a military target, or it is not.  And a weapon is legal, or it is not.  Otherwise you get into the ridiculousness of Martinus wanting people to be tackled.

What I am more used to is police use of force rules, where there definitely is gradation, but at the lower levels (soft versus hard physical controls,  less than lethal weapons).  But it's such an entirely different environment than a battlefield, where one side (the police) have such an overwhelming advantage in the level of force available.  And even then once lethal force threshold is allowed there is no more gradation - you can use lethal force, period.

[The Larch]

But not surprising.  AMLO let it be known a while ago that he's bad news all around.

Yeah, AMLO is quite the disgrace. Latin American radical lefties are, generally speaking, unbearable. Tons of Spanish language pro-Putin content online comes from there.

[viper37]

I was only joking  I don't except all lawyers on board to be specialized in every aspect of civilian and military law in every country of the planet.

[crazy canuck]

Are there some materiality standards for violations before protections can be lifted?  If some individual ambulance driver, on his own volition in violation of policies, chooses to give a secret ride to a couple of his drinking buddies armed with NLAWs, is every ambulance everywhere in Ukraine now a legitimate target after he's caught? 

If the government/leadership takes action to punish those violating the LoAC by abusing protections, then the protections hold.  That's what I recommended in the first post on this.  If the government/leadership does not discourage perfidy, it forfeits the protections.

If you're arguing that Ukrainians should restrain themselves in order to gain protection against what Russians might do then you haven't been paying attention to what is actually been happening

[Admiral Yi]

"Lena News" is reporting 600 Russians have surrendered.