How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Were the people in the video prisoners of war? Since when is a person a prisoner of war? From the moment his hands were raised, or from the moment this man was searched and made sure that he was no longer a danger to others? If fire is being fired from the side of a person who raised his hands, do soldiers have the right to fire in the direction of a person with their hands raised in terms of the laws of war? You are legally much more literate than me, explain these legal concepts to me

Well I am not a lawyer in LOAC but can take a shot.  In all those links I provided the first one goes fairly deeply in who constitutes a POW.  Basically the definition is “a combatant who fall into the hands (or under the “power”) of their opponent.  Practically POW designation is afforded to anyone who either declares it and/or is clearly incapable of continuing in their role as a combatant - e.g. wounded or disarmed.

So if we have say 10 RA soldiers coming out of a building with no visible weapons and their hands raised (there is a list of recognized non-verbal signals) then by LOAC everyone of them is likely to be considered a POW.  Revocation of that status is actually supposed to be done by a military legal body and here we get into spies and unlawful combatants.  However, none of this denies the UA soldiers right to self-defence in the event that one or all of the RA soldiers are exercising perfidy - or an unlawful ruse that exploits the LOAC.

So one of those RA soldiers has a grenade and tosses it - clearly exercising perfidy - and a frankly bafflingly dedicated/fanatic level of commitment because he had to know how this would end.  Well under the rules of LOAC there could be a case that the individual forfeited his POW status and could be re-designated as a lawful combatant and therefore a target.  Further, the RA individual clearly demonstrated intent by tossing a grenade and an easy case for self-defence could be made by whoever takes him out.  All good.

Now as to the other 9 RA troops, nothing in LOAC removes their status as POWs based on the actions of Mr “I will die for Putin because reasons!”  In fact they would each have to assessed by their actions as to whether or not they too were exercising perfidy.  So we are talking the right to self defence and here the slope get really slippery.  An investigation would have to show that as a group the other 9 RA soldiers demonstrated intent and capability to pose a lethal threat to the UA soldiers - who all still had there issued weapons.  Here I expect the legal threshold is higher than “well they may have all had grenades in there undies”.  Even if that were true they would need to all be reaching for those grenades to justify the love they received from that MG.  In short, it appears - and here we can only see pictures and a video on social media - that some of those RA may have been legal POWs who got caught up in a self-defence response.  This is not crime in itself if it can be proven that the shooter was trying to restrict fire to the offending RA troops but collateral happens.

Either way a far more detailed investigation- eg one that looks at ballistics, eye witness accounts and wound patterns, will be required to determine what actually happened with enough resolution to hand this over to a legal proceeding.  The important thing now is for Ukraine to declare that investigation and make it transparent enough to pass the sniff test from their international supporters.  We get that bad things happen in war, we just want to make sure we are backing the team that fights and looks like us in all this.

 

[Taranis]

"Graves of soldiers in Lviv, western Ukraine, November 21, 2022. YURIY DYACHYSHYN / AFP"

[FancyCat]

This is the Russian opposition, liberal. It is important to understand that the failure of the West to stop this invasion occurred precisely cause the West gave Russia too much rope, too much deference in Syria, Georgia, Ukraine in the hopes of paving the way to democratic Russia and European unity and inadvertently allowed a wolf to sneak in with no intent but to destroy that.

Since the precursors for aid to West Germany in the Marshall Plan cannot occur at all with Russia (occupation), and EU precursors like the European Coal and Steel Community (integration) are also unlikely, despite this message being oriented domestically, it's very important for all parties internationally to see that Russia is unlikely to adopt any of the measures Germany, defeated at the end of the Second World War did to regain standing.

The idea that Russia, literally untouched by war deserves aid while Ukraine fights off the winter and darkness brought by Russian missiles is deeply troubling and a poor look...tweet below is a Twitter thread elaborating on the same marshall plan, from a member of Navalny's team.

 

 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

All right, but aren't we getting too far ahead here? You are talking of change and adaptation on the doctrinal level and developing a range of systems to ensure dominance. The gun from the original tweet is hardly a solution to that, it is just a gun for shooting at small drones. A tool that arguably is missing from typical army's quiver. Not a systemic solution to the changing battlefield realities, perhaps just one of the bricks.

Also, let me nitpick at some other statements here:

- Small CUAS is an obvious direction, but there isn't anything even remotely approaching a ready solution. Counting this solving your drone problem now, or even in 5 years time is like counting on laser weapons - not realistic at this point. Also, the technical problem of building anything that could operate in a way a small fighter aircraft would might really be not feasible at all - at the moment when you created a platform big enough to carry necessary sensors (radar?) you end up with size and cost that will make it a prime target for classical AD. Unless we are thinking of some drone swarm solution, vertically integrated with higher echelon sensors etc - this sounds promising, but wasn't even demonstrated as a prototype yet (at least openly). You can't just advise an armed forces to buy it to prepare for a conflict in 2026.

- at the moment, in UA setting there's still a huge problem of small "bombodrons", commercial quadcopters operating in very close vicinity to the soldiers, and of loitering munitions. Terrain itself forces the drones to close in - built up areas, hills, ravines, forests etc make them fly directly above the heads of the troops, that fire at them with small arms. Barring the above mentioned swarm (or being US Army level superior and just not letting your opponent even blink before you trash him), what other way to actively combat this threat is there? Concealment and EW are of course factors here too, but hardly suffice by itself I'd say.

To narrow this down, I'm obviously looking at all of this from the perspective of Polish Armed Forces modernization. We know who the potential enemy is, what are his capabilities (give or take of course) and observe how he's developing them. Idea is to be "ready" say in 2028. A lot of what you described is being incorporated into this program (as far as the general public can see at least). But if we talk specifically about the lowest level air-defence, PL is more or less following the path of being able to physically swat the drones from the sky, I don't see why anybody would argument against it.

Fair points but I guess my point is that this is like your seat cushion being used as floatation device when you fly over the ocean - it is a placebo military capability, and history is rife with them.  So it is 2028 and the Russian bear somehow glues its head back on and decides "well Ukraine turned out so well, let's try for Poland and NATO...woo hoo!"  And let's assume they get Chinese high tech support because China has also legally lost its collective marbles.  So the RA now has significant drone strike capability along with comparative PGM and C4ISR.  So what?

- Well in 5 years "bomb drones" we are seeing in this war will likely be a quaint memory as systems are developed that allow for stand off and sub-munitions delivery (for some reason the Turks are out in front on this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/06/17/turkish-military-to-receive-500-swarming-kamikaze-drones/?sh=528ef2de251a).  So you will have these things coming in at treetop level and dropping all over you, while you blaze away with a 30mm gun.  In a wide open desert you may stand a chance but in any rolling, forested or built up areas swinging and targeting that big ol gun around will not cut it.

- All them 30mm mounted guns are on big hot vehicles, all blazing away and will be spotted for kms.  So even if they can swat those nasty bomb drones, the boys will have about 2 minutes to celebrate before the PGM artillery cuts them to pieces...assuming the enemy even bothers with "bomb drones" in the first place.

- The trucks that provide the gas and ammo to operate those big ol smart guns is can also be seen from space and it had better have a lot of 30mm smart guns on top of it or the RA will simply cut Polish supply lines to pieces through deep strike and all them security blanket 30mms will run out ammo.

So will these neat 30mm guns with new ammo solve anything if in 5 years your opponent brings "bomb drones" from 2022 with them?...maybe, and yes better than nothing - tactically.  Strategically and operationally - worse than nothing if one sinks billions into this solution and short-changes longer term transformational changes that need to occur in order to secure competitive advantage against a nation state. 

What I see is a very expensive weapon system that may be effective against non-state VEOs who buy a drone on Amazon and mount boom-boom on it (it has been done).  However, the solutions to the much bigger issues of the shifts in warfare, and ensuring we can fight and win against another nation state in 5 years, are going to need a much deeper and painful evolution in western military enterprises writ large. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by The_Capt

[Huba]

23 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

- All them 30mm mounted guns are on big hot vehicles, all blazing away and will be spotted for kms.  So even if they can swat those nasty bomb drones, the boys will have about 2 minutes to celebrate before the PGM artillery cuts them to pieces...assuming the enemy even bothers with "bomb drones" in the first place.

- The trucks that provide the gas and ammo to operate those big ol smart guns is can also be seen from space and it had better have a lot of 30mm smart guns on top of it or the RA will simply cut Polish supply lines to pieces through deep strike and all them security blanket 30mms will run out ammo.

Sorry, but this is not relevant to the discussion, or at least not directly. We are not talking about a system designed to prevent this, and you could argument that way against basically anything the army wants to buy.

25 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So will these neat 30mm guns with new ammo solve anything if in 5 years your opponent brings "bomb drones" from 2022 with them...maybe, and yes better than nothing - tactically.  Strategically and operationally - worse than nothing if one sinks billions into this solution and short changes longer term transformational changes that need to occur in order to secure competitive advantage against a nation state. 

What I see is a very expensive weapon system that may be effective against non-state VEOs who buy a drone on Amazon and mount boom-boom on it (it has been done).  However, the solutions to the much bigger issues of the shifts in warfare, and ensuring we can fight and win against another nation state in 5 years, are going to need a much deeper and painful evolution in western military enterprises writ large. 

Now this is an argument that one has to accept, assuming it is true. I have no clue about the cost-effectiveness of adding say a company of c-UAS guns to your brigade-level AA detachment vs utilizing this money to otherwise alleviate the problem of small tactical drones. If this money can be spent better you should of course pursue this path.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

Were the people in the video prisoners of war? Since when is a person a prisoner of war? From the moment his hands were raised, or from the moment this man was searched and made sure that he was no longer a danger to others? If fire is being fired from the side of a person who raised his hands, do soldiers have the right to fire in the direction of a person with their hands raised in terms of the laws of war? You are legally much more literate than me, explain these legal concepts to me

The_Capt already answers this more thoroughly, but I'll chime in.

Generally, it is accepted that the moment a soldier declares his intent to surrender AND demonstrates that he intends to disarm (i.e. even before he drops his weapon) he is considered a POW.  It's the same thing with police here in the US.  For sure there's a gray area where the guy surrendering could behave in a way to cause the soldier (or police officer) to think it's a ruse and that his life is in danger.  Therefore, legally, there's a lot of deference (benefit of the doubt) extended to the soldier/police.  The further along in the process of surrender, the less deference is extended. 

Obviously refusing to drop a gun or raising it, not to mention firing it, is very different than someone visually unarmed extended on the ground with hands out where they can be seen.  The Russian that came out gun blazing was a legitimate target, plain and simple.  Absolutely no doubt about it.  The rules of war also allow for accidental deaths/injuries as a result of a legal action, so a few of the guys on the ground getting killed in the process is probably not going to raise an eyebrow amongst people who understand the legal principles of war crimes.

Having said that, the law is very clear that the side taking prisoners has a legal responsibility to take reasonable measures to ensure POWs are not harmed.  Having that PKM guy on the ground was a very poor choice, but that is safe for me to say sitting here at my computer.  Doesn't change that it was a poor choice, though.

What we do not know is how all those guys died.  I have done a reasonable reconstruction of events from the info we have and I don't see how they all wound up dead in mostly the positions where they were before the incident.  Any of them shot while crawling away is not acceptable under the law as there is there was no place for the guys to crawl too.  Unless there was some sign of threat, using lethal force under those circumstances is a war crime.

 

Those of us who know WW2 history might remember the Malmedy Massacre during the Battle of the Bulge.  A very small group of inexperienced Waffen SS men were guarding a VERY large group of unarmed American prisoners.  The best evidence suggests some of the prisoners decided it was safe to escape and the machinegunner opened up and killed a large number of the prisoners.  That was probably a war crime, but there was a case to be made that it wasn't.  However, the Germans realized how bad it was and so they mowed down the rest of them and finished off survivors with pistol shots.  That absolutely was a war crime, no doubts about it.  As was the United States officers issuing orders that no Germans be taken alive for a period of time after the bodies were discovered.

Steve

[Huba]

Best illustration of the need of providing UA with just slightly longer range weapons:

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

This is a problem with a televised war, as the Americans found in Vietnam. So the UA really needs to get its troops to shut their damn Gopros off.

Yes, and some commentator pointed out that perhaps if the Ukrainians were less focused on making a movie they could have been better prepared for the "hero" that came out the door.  This is something that many of us said throughout this war.  It's a distraction that can get people killed.

It is interesting that the drone footage came out first, then the ground perspective seemingly as a response.  Anybody know if the drone was Russian or Ukrainian?  If it was Ukrainian the guy who posted that footage needs to have his ears boxed.  I hate like Hell saying "cover it up", but this is war against a nation that wants to wipe them off the face of the Earth.  I understand war, I understand what Ukraine is fighting against.  Most in the general population don't, so I'd rather them not see stuff like this.

Steve

[The_Capt]

16 minutes ago, Huba said:

Sorry, but this is not relevant to the discussion, or at least not directly. We are not talking about a system designed to prevent this, and you could argument that way against basically anything the army wants to buy.

This is extremely relevant to the discussion because we have been watching the UA do it for 8 months.  These two phenomenon are directly related to the greater employment of UAS on the battlefield for which the guns system is supposed to defend against.  The logistics vulnerability isn't even a stretch as logistical trucks can get drone bombed pretty easily.

If we are not "talking about a system to prevent this" then we are not talking about a relevant system to the actual war we are likely to fight in 5-10 years.

I worked in military force development for a lot of years and trust me even western military professionals are not immune to what we called the "tactical shiny". 

"Let's buy those fancy new F-35s, man they will let us do some real stuff. 

Hey what about the re-fuelers and airborne aerospace control? 

Huh?  Oh I am sure someone will figure it out later."

Unless we are talking about an entire system to counter an entire system, then grab-bag tactical solutions makes for an integration nightmare in the future at best.  At worst you waste an enormous amount of money and wind up in an investment trap where "we can't change now...look how much money we spent."  The you go to war upside down...kinda like the RA just did.

The reason to buy military kit is to build military capability not to simply have the kit.  If you are making purchases that are not solving the bigger problem then you are not actually solving anything and you might be making it worse.

Now if this 30mm gun is part of a larger system, cool.  But all I see is a single weapon system with some customized ammo, that may not be able to actually do anything about UAS as a enemy military capability in 5 years.  I am highly suspicious of the military industry - with reason - as they will roll out some quick win high profile sales to reinforce stock value, while militaries are scrambling to look like they are doing "something about something" they should have seen coming about a decade ago - a lot of money being spent but not actually solving anything.

But hey, you guys do you.

[Huba]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Now if this 30mm gun is part of a larger system, cool. 

I think that basically sums up the whole discussion, and I agree of course. What I really wanted to point at while posting the original tweet is that miniaturization of VT and other programmable fuses opening some interesting technical possibilities.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Huba

[kevinkin]

Article on Intercontinental drones:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2022/11/21/wing-loong-3-the-emergent-dangers-of-long-range-intercontinental-attack-drones/?sh=e7d8bab3d2f6

Soon, drones like the Wing Loong 3 will be available on the market, potentially enabling their operators to threaten targets from entire continents away. Rogers fears it could only be a matter of time before rogue states or even non-state groups get their hands on such potentially lethal hardware.

"As I explained to the United Nations Security Council, my main concern – the issue that keeps me awake at night – is that the range of drones (and precision strike systems) is increasing at a record pace," he said. "Even non-state groups now have drones that can travel over 1,500 km (930 miles)."

"How long will it be before a terrorist group can conduct an intercontinental strike from the safety of their terrorist safe haven?" he asked. "There is no longer a need for terrorists to risk being caught by transiting borders or masterminding complicated plots."

"Terror can be deployed by remote control from thousands of miles away."

- James Rogers, a professor at the Center for War Studies at the University of Southern Denmark and a non-resident senior fellow at the Cornell Tech Policy Lab at Cornell University

Anyone remember the DEW line?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Early_Warning_Line

Rush sort of immortalized it:

Cruising under your radar
Watching from satellites
Take a page from the red book
And keep them in your sights
Red alert, red alert

 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

So the UA really needs to get its troops to shut their damn Gopros off.

In this case the drone shot of Russian bodies stacked one on another with blood flowing out of their heads was circulated first. It looked very much like execution. I think they released the more detailed video of the whole incident as damage limitation

[Beleg85]

2 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-prankster-impersonating-macron-spoke-polands-duda-after-blast-2022-11-22/

The recording: https://rutube.ru/video/1c3c0277eb2efdb63bc444382a42e6a8/

Those bloody pranksters are one best tools FSB currently has- note how fast they reacted to incident with their "pranks". Tbf despite his terrible language and inability to recognize Macron (whom he spoke zilion times) Duda didn't said anything special or secret, it mostly align with what we knew at that time.

But whole incident is humiliation of services, no doubt about it; they should have long established procedures of verification.

[The_Capt]

29 minutes ago, Huba said:

I think that basically sums up the whole discussion, and I agree of course. What I really wanted to point at while posting the original tweet is that miniaturization of VT and other programmable fuses opening some interesting technical possibilities.

Well this was not a shot at you personally.  More the love-hate relationship with the western military industrial complex.  When aligned with military strategy industry can do (and has) amazing things - like win the Cold War.  However, these guys are in this for additional reasons outside defending national interests, like their own interests.  So we have been on the receiving end of more military snake oil in the last 30 years than I care to remember.  

Add to this the deep internal resistance to change by both the industrial complex and militaries themselves and we have a recipe for truly epic screw ups in the next 10-20 years.  Warfare is moving - I, and others in the business, have felt the trembles for years.  And I suspect it is not incremental shift we are talking about. The militaries on top, who are heavily invested in a certain paradigm, do not historically do well in times of major shifts...we shall see. 

[A Canadian Cat]

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Note only a few posts ago sburke posted a new story of terrorist bombings in Moscow:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-in-flames-at-least-five-dead-as-moscow-rocked-by-explosion-by-major-train-stations/ar-AA14memb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a3b4701c62f5485884b4a8d341c3c69d

Coincidence?  I'm guessing not.

Everything is fine until one day they are not! Sweet perhaps today is the day. Or later this week - I'm good with that too.

 

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Then there is Kadyrov.  I think the FSB guy is suggesting that Kadyrov, and others, might not be the first to make a move, but if Prigozhin moves they will likely try to carve out something for themselves.  Kadyrov is pretty much assured of taking Chechnya for his own at any time IMHO.

Yeah Kadyrov was always in the best position. He likely never wanted control of the entire federation. Or more accurately knows he cannot achieve that. But he is already in control of a nice chunk of his area. He can afford to do nothing much and wait for the house of cards to fall at someone else's hand and just declare himself whatever he likes and keep the chaos away from his little area.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Fair points but I guess my point is that this is like your seat cushion being used as floatation device when you fly over the ocean - it is a placebo military capability, and history is rife with them.  So it is 2028 and the Russian bear somehow glues its head back on and decides "well Ukraine turned out so well, let's try for Poland and NATO...woo hoo!"  And let's assume they get Chinese high tech support because China has also legally lost its collective marbles.  So the RA now has significant drone strike capability along with comparative PGM and C4ISR.  So what?

- Well in 5 years "bomb drones" we are seeing in this war will likely be a quaint memory as systems are developed that allow for stand off and sub-munitions delivery (for some reason the Turks are out in front on this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/06/17/turkish-military-to-receive-500-swarming-kamikaze-drones/?sh=528ef2de251a).  So you will have these things coming in at treetop level and dropping all over you, while you blaze away with a 30mm gun.  In a wide open desert you may stand a chance but in any rolling, forested or built up areas swinging and targeting that big ol gun around will not cut it.

- All them 30mm mounted guns are on big hot vehicles, all blazing away and will be spotted for kms.  So even if they can swat those nasty bomb drones, the boys will have about 2 minutes to celebrate before the PGM artillery cuts them to pieces...assuming the enemy even bothers with "bomb drones" in the first place.

- The trucks that provide the gas and ammo to operate those big ol smart guns is can also be seen from space and it had better have a lot of 30mm smart guns on top of it or the RA will simply cut Polish supply lines to pieces through deep strike and all them security blanket 30mms will run out ammo.

So will these neat 30mm guns with new ammo solve anything if in 5 years your opponent brings "bomb drones" from 2022 with them?...maybe, and yes better than nothing - tactically.  Strategically and operationally - worse than nothing if one sinks billions into this solution and short-changes longer term transformational changes that need to occur in order to secure competitive advantage against a nation state. 

What I see is a very expensive weapon system that may be effective against non-state VEOs who buy a drone on Amazon and mount boom-boom on it (it has been done).  However, the solutions to the much bigger issues of the shifts in warfare, and ensuring we can fight and win against another nation state in 5 years, are going to need a much deeper and painful evolution in western military enterprises writ large. 

The Turks are a classic case of a rising power who declines to engage the existing hegemon in an area where they are strong, and develops a whole new generation of warfighting that makes a lead on the old measures irrelevant. Carriers superseding battleships for instance. Once that happened your investment in battleships was almost irrelevant to the fundamental navy job of controlling the seas and denying it to the other guy. NATO model ground forces are at risk of getting caught, expensively, on the wrong end of such a shift. Forward edge of battle is going to become almost entirely robotic, very quickly

 

55 minutes ago, Huba said:

Best illustration of the need of providing UA with just slightly longer range weapons:

 

The AFU is only a small increment from being able to attack the entirety of the land bridge. if they can achieve that increment, either by advancing, or some longer range toys, the entire Russian position just becomes a bigger version of the right bank position the Russian army just abandoned. And logistical corrosion will collapse it the same way. And General Winter is here to lend a hand.

36 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Article on Intercontinental drones:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2022/11/21/wing-loong-3-the-emergent-dangers-of-long-range-intercontinental-attack-drones/?sh=e7d8bab3d2f6

Soon, drones like the Wing Loong 3 will be available on the market, potentially enabling their operators to threaten targets from entire continents away. Rogers fears it could only be a matter of time before rogue states or even non-state groups get their hands on such potentially lethal hardware.

"As I explained to the United Nations Security Council, my main concern – the issue that keeps me awake at night – is that the range of drones (and precision strike systems) is increasing at a record pace," he said. "Even non-state groups now have drones that can travel over 1,500 km (930 miles)."

"How long will it be before a terrorist group can conduct an intercontinental strike from the safety of their terrorist safe haven?" he asked. "There is no longer a need for terrorists to risk being caught by transiting borders or masterminding complicated plots."

"Terror can be deployed by remote control from thousands of miles away."

- James Rogers, a professor at the Center for War Studies at the University of Southern Denmark and a non-resident senior fellow at the Cornell Tech Policy Lab at Cornell University

Anyone remember the DEW line?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Early_Warning_Line

Rush sort of immortalized it:

Cruising under your radar
Watching from satellites
Take a page from the red book
And keep them in your sights
Red alert, red alert

 

Technological revolutions are hard on the side with trillions invested in the old paradigm.

[Battlefront.com]

25 minutes ago, IanL said:

Yeah Kadyrov was always in the best position. He likely never wanted control of the entire federation. Or more accurately knows he cannot achieve that. But he is already in control of a nice chunk of his area. He can afford to do nothing much and wait for the house of cards to fall at someone else's hand and just declare himself whatever he likes and keep the chaos away from his little area.

Kadyrov is like most dictators... they neither want nor look for expanding their territory beyond their immediate borders (including disputed areas).  Even if they pick a fight with a neighbor they tend to not want the whole country, just parts of it that border their own.  Putin is a large scale expansionist, which is unusual historically speaking.  In fact, at the moment he might be the only dictator on Earth that fits into this category.  Even the Chinese seem to have limited aspirations.

Steve

[kraze]

If 10 russians come at AFU and one of them attacks - all of them going dead in that very instant is perfectly fine.

It's very easy to question why weren't Ukrainian soldiers taking down one guy and leaving the rest to surrender or doing it in any better way from a perfect safety of calm, warm home thousands of miles away where war is just a show on TV - but in an environment of a maximum stress and a maximum hazard to life where split-second decisions mean life or death, especially when it comes to an enemy as deceitful and barbaric - thinking things through is a non-existent privilege, so all russians should've died on the spot the moment one of them posed any kind of danger. And so they did.

I'd rather have russians bury their dead than us burying our own only because we should've looked good on TV.

Edited November 22, 2022 by kraze

[Butschi]

6 minutes ago, kraze said:

If 10 russians come at AFU and one of them attacks - all of them going dead in that very instant is perfectly fine.

There is nothing "fine" about this. Perhaps humanly understandable.  And I doubt you would say the same if the situation was exactly the same only that Russians had killed Ukrainian POWs.

[Jace11]

How can people can talk about that incident and fail to mention that perfidy is also a war crime?

The BBC did exactly that a few days ago, parroting many Kremlin talking points but absolutely no mention of deception.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Jace11

[Desertor]

How old are you Kraze?

[kraze]

2 minutes ago, Butschi said:

There is nothing "fine" about this. Perhaps humanly understandable.  And I doubt you would say the same if the situation was exactly the same only that Russians had killed Ukrainian POWs.

Except they do much much worse for no actual reason and without any provocation, save for sadistic pleasure or something. After all they came here to brutally torture and murder all of us.

Also, you know, just a thought - but if those russians didn't come here to kill people in the first place - all of them would've lived. What a wild idea is that?

[kraze]

5 minutes ago, Jace11 said:

How can people can talk about that incident and fail to mention that perfidy is also a war crime?

Because some people keep desperately looking for that magical equality sign that should make this war of genocide less black and white, just like those are shown in modern Hollywood. 

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Well this was not a shot at you personally.  More the love-hate relationship with the western military industrial complex.  When aligned with military strategy industry can do (and has) amazing things - like win the Cold War.  However, these guys are in this for additional reasons outside defending national interests, like their own interests.  So we have been on the receiving end of more military snake oil in the last 30 years than I care to remember.  

Add to this the deep internal resistance to change by both the industrial complex and militaries themselves and we have a recipe for truly epic screw ups in the next 10-20 years.  Warfare is moving - I, and others in the business, have felt the trembles for years.  And I suspect it is not incremental shift we are talking about. The militaries on top, who are heavily invested in a certain paradigm, do not historically do well in times of major shifts...we shall see. 

And it is much harder to force the side that won the last war to change. We are being set up almost perfectly for a bad case of this problem.

[keas66]

The Allies  were  executing German prisoners in WW2  at various times . Plenty of examples in the literature/histories  of that conflict .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenogne_massacre

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-horror-of-d-day-a-new-openness-to-discussing-allied-war-crimes-in-wwii-a-692037.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26014041

I won't even raise the issue of what happened to Germans at the hands of the Russians . Needless to say they both behaved barbarically  to each other  .  So  I'm  not sure why every one is getting so sensitive about a bunch of Russians getting handed out the same treatment they  themselves no doubt would have  indulged in given the chance . Its a war and humans really have not evolved into a more sensitive caring bunch of individuals in the last 70 years just because society itself has more visibility into what is going on at the front lines by virtue of technology .