@Tobias_Ellwood@NATOSource I’d suggest that CGS probably advocated for a larger force, but as ever was directed by the politicians to cut his cloth accordingly so had to appear satisfied with what the IR churned out! we know the treasury sets the envelop and it’s not capability that matters but money….
@ErinSakip@unixandthings@RALee85 It’s very sad that you have read my comments and think I’m an apologist for Russia as I’m clearly making an extremely narrow point on this one case. Of course it’s absolutely not ok for RUS to do what you have described but maybe change your bio to “uninformed/myopic views”.
@unixandthings@DirkDaknife@RALee85 2/2 so if you knowingly target a group that included wounded soldiers not in the fight etc that is contrary to the GC. I believe you can see the wounded soldier being loaded into the vehicle. I have absolutely zero sympathy for RUS, but illegal acts by the UA cannot be condoned
@unixandthings@DirkDaknife@RALee85@unixandthings absolutely, but the wounded individual that they are loading into the vehicle does fit the definition, and as a non-precision weapon is being used against the group it goes against another principle, that of distinction- only hitting your intended target 1/2
@unixandthings@RALee85 The issue is if you are knowingly targeting the wounded/injured, not what vehicle is being used to move them. If the wounded are in an armoured vehicle that is continuing to fight then that remains a legitimate target as they/it are not “hors de combat” and can be destroyed.
@unixandthings@RALee85 Platform used for CASEVAC is of no relevance. In international humanitarian law an individual who is wounded is classified as “hors de combat” and is a protected person. I believe that the end of this clip shows a wounded individual being extracted and targeted therefore illegal
@RyanMcbeth@Smedley1775@RALee85@ryanMcbeth couldn’t agree with you more. As an active duty commander if I was on Ops and one of my blokes expressed this sentiment alarm bells would be going off!
@DirkDaknife@RALee85 I suggest that you review the law of armed conflict as understood by NATO countries and the legal definition of “hors de combat”. You may then change your mind. I’m out.
@Alvaroj91118083@RALee85 You are correct but in addition if an individual is “hors de combat” it is also against the LOAC to deliberately target them. If the continue to fight whilst wounded they remain a legitimate target but in this instance that doesn’t appear to be the case.
@Olex_Nykytyuk@RALee85 If you look carefully I believe that x1 soldier is being assisted to the car by another. He looks to have a splint on a leg and is being helped into the vehicle by the other for what I would say is CASEVAC. In the heat of the moment this may have been missed by the drone operator
@ClaybrookKirk@RALee85 In the west we would have been horrified (and were) if our enemies had gunned down the 4/5 individuals conducting our casevacs in Iraq/Afghanistan. The law of armed conflict exists for good reason and many, many Russian actions, and this UA one, are against it.
@RyanMcbeth@RALee85@DirkDaknife I respectfully disagree with you. I believe it is clear on the video that they are loading a casualty from the 1st strike into the vehicle. This individual is “hors de combat” and therefore attacking them is a war crime. Nothing justifies war crimes on either side
@max61420531@packham_t@COUPSURE Also a war crime. Descending to the level of the Russians is not what the UKR should be doing to maintain its moral authority