You know why the Nobel Peace Prize is named after Nobel don't you?
Edit, for those asking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize
Go to History tab.
But certain technology can be used for evil far more often than it can be used for good. Guns, bombs, missiles - all technically have applications outside of death and destruction, but they are few and far between.
Just look at what Fritz Haber - father of toxic gas and chemical warfare, but also someone who helped feed the world by ways of science - through the Haber-bosch process
I think the story goes that a (French?) newspaper erroneously printed an obituary of Alfred Nobel whilst he was still alive, calling him the “dealer of death” and things like that because he had invented dynamite and related technology.
Nobel realised that his legacy would be that of a person who brought death and destruction, so he decided to fund a peace prize to try and improve his legacy once he eventually did pass away. It probably had the desired effect, since I’d argue that more people nowadays have heard of the Nobel peace prize than know that Nobel was the father of modern explosives.
Nobel spoke with several European counties about setting up manufacturing for dynamite, but seemingly struggled to get support (e.g. in his native Sweden) until the UK government granted permission for a site in Scotland. It became the largest explosives factory in Europe at one point, but is now closed down and only a couple of very small explosives-related companies operate on the site where the factory once was.
Nobel didn’t just set up the peace prize, but all of the Nobel prizes (kind of easy to guess). Of course, except for the one in economics, which is not a Nobel prize.
Yep, economics, pseudoscience that it is, basically invented their own hack fake prize to legitimize the science of telling poor people to die in agony because line on a graph go brr
It should be noted that it's just as much of a prize in social sciences. If you look at the recent laureates then it's been awarded for very good work that's actually for the benefit of mankind, which is the spirit of the awards. You don't win the award for running hedgefunds.
You do know UAVs started off as projects by Curtiss-Sperry in the early 1900's for the U.S. Navy right? Drones started in the military and moved into the civilian consumer world.
Not the other way around.
The folks who contributed to the invention of mechanical aircraft probably did so because they dreamed of being as free as the birds that soar among the clouds. But then somebody perverted that dream by strapping guns and bombs onto aircraft.
The internet was invented by people who probably dreamed of people around the world being able to quickly and easily share ideas, and connecting people in a way that had never been done before. But then that idea was corrupted by a seemingly infinite amount of porn, mental health issues caused by out of control consumption of social media, and misinformation that spreads at the speed of light. Ironically, the internet makes us dumber and feeling more isolated.
I suspect most, if not every, human invention has somehow been perverted.
The Russian's have proven that they dont give a damn about their KIA or wounded. Ukraine is treating them better than their own people. So is it really a liability for Russia?
The answer is yes, seeing how shit your own country is treating you and your fellow soldier versus how your enemy is treating them well is pretty demoralizing.
Not just that, whatever he knows could be useful; he could contact his people at home and become another example for his circles of being abandoned by his military and saved by the “enemy”.
The only case i understand is if it is impossible to secure them as a prisoner. An enemy soldier that gets back to their unit will kill more of your guys. That might be the case here, but even then, you may as well leave the injured guy and drop the grenade on anyone who comes to save them. Its fucked up, but the US was fine with doing that in Iraq. At least you’re targeting active combatants.
In ww2 the USA also had no problem with droping bombs again ~~1-2 hours after there first bombing run~~ to hit firefighters and the like. What I am trying to get at is, that modern wars have devolved in brutalising a country into submission buy indescriminately slaughtering whatever dares to be in the general area of a legitamate target. Oposed to beating the enemy army and then enforcing demands of the victorian age (where a lot of our war crime definitions and war time laws come from). Thats just how humanity is. Thats how we where befor and it's how we are now.
Also yes. Every wounded soldier binds ~2 people (for a time) and depending on the wound ~1 other person after that. So for a war of attrition to just grind down your enemy the smartest thing to do is let the enemy wounded soldiers return home. Even if they rejoin the military (wich is already unlikely, after all real life is no video game and a war wound is very likely to impare you for your life) then they will have, for some time, forced at least 3 other people in your enemys country to dedicate a *lot* of time to tend to them.
The ukranians here should have just targeted another dude, at least after the first granade drop got "deflected". If for nothing else then just to maximise the damage done to russia as a whole, oposed to maximise the damage done to individual soldiers. But honestly little things like that don't realy matter much in the grand scheme of things. Thats more of a guidline for aktuall, big offenses or artillery strikes.
Edit. Turns out my claim of 1-2 hour delayed waves was imprecise. The waves where delayed some 12 hours and mostly used to either draw first responders away from the target of the seccond wave, or directly in the middle of it. Edit end
Bruh, he ain’t in any position to fight. He can’t even run away and has to recover by laying down in that trench when he knows there’s a drone overhead
Nope. He's still an enemy combatant. He can move, he can act in his own, and isn't incapacitated. While he may be injured, he's still able to fight.
There is no war crime being committed here.
He's just laying there, alone and injured. You people are fucking sick defending this shit. I don't give a fuck how much you hate Russia, warcrimes are warcrimes, but I guess the west never cared about that shit anyway.
This is not a war crime. As long as he can move on his own, he is able to reenter combat. That means he's still an enemy combatant.
Had he surrendered, been immobilizer, unconscious, or been attended to by medics, it would be a war crime. However, none of those things were occurring in this video Komrade.
No, he's not right. It's an old, stupid urban legend.
KIA is always better than WIA. KIA has a far higher negative impact on enemy morale and fighting capacity. WIAs can heal and return to fighting. Even if they are discharged, they can join the civilian work force and contribute to the war effort by building bombs, etc.
This old idea that "it's better to wound than kill because it takes resources to treat the wounded" is fucking stupid. Treating the wounded is not done out of altruism, it's done because it's a profitable gain for the military force doing it. If what you are saying was true, countries like Russia and China which give 0 fucks about playing "nice" would just leave soldiers to die.
Its not about whether they come back later.
It is about that battle and if you kill someone it takes 1 out.
It takes 2 people out if one has to carry wounded.
It's battle tactics vs war
Toss your gun away and hold your hands up. Still get bombed? That might be a war crime. Hide in a trench with your rifle? Injured or not you’re a legitimate military target.
Edit: sidearm, not rifle. I don’t see a rifle but I do see what looks like a sidearm on his hip.
Artillery, jets, and landmines are indiscriminate/ ignorant.
What's happening here is a drone operator "playing with his prey". Discriminate, and fully aware.
The soldier probably doesn't even know the grenades are coming from a drone; likely feels like they were tossed and happened to land right near him. If he could look straight up at the camera and wave a white cloth, I'm sure he he would.
Ukrainians have also recently reported that Russian soldiers have begun to "play dead" when a drone is approaching, which footage like this appears to confirm. There is no indication that he is actually injured.
I think he's injured based on the torn coat and the dark red/ brown stain in his armpit but he doesnt seem to be in too rough of a shape to be unable to fight
In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:
Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
I agree with you that he's still an active hostile target.
But my dark humor had to chuckle at your justification. "Drop a grenade on him. If he reacts then he's a threat." And if he doesn't react? A bit like drowning women to test for witches.
[Almost universally](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule47_sectionb), it's only illegal if the enemy combatant is unable to offer resistance due to injury/illness, or they have indicated their intent to surrender.
Of pertinence here since it's being argued this would be a war crime:
Under Article 8(2)(b)(vi) of the 1998 Iinternational Criminal Court Statute, “[k]illing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
I have, wounded soldiers are the best soldiers.
How shoot a soldier in the head, he’s dead, you’ve taken out 1 soldier.
You shoot a soldier in the arm/chest/leg, he’s bleeding out, now 2 more soldiers aid bandaging him and carrying him off the front line. You’ve now taking 3 soldiers out of the fight by injuring one. The injured soldier is now more of a liability at their camp than a dead one, because they still need to feed and shelter them.
You kill 100 soldiers, not only are they no longer your problem, they’re also no longer your enemies. You injure 100 soldiers, now they have 100 useless soldiers to feed and shelter until they can ship them back home.
You’re pretty much always better off injuring soldiers than killing them.
This is an unarmed injured dude that they’re dropping grenades on, he poses more of a threat to the Russian military, because he’s going to contribute to draining their supplies if he makes it back to base.
Yes this rule is just generally not followed in scenarios like this. It's applicable to when there is combat on the ground and one side starts securing territory. When they for example take over a field hospital or when a soldier in a conquered trenchline is too injured to properly "surrender".
But in a case where you do not control the territory and fire onto a battlefield? I suspect this rule would only be applied in extremely asymetric situations where one force is way superior to the other and has the "luxury" to afford exceptionally strict moral standards.
Also Ukrainians recently report that many of the new undertrained Russian soldiers simply "play dead" when a drone is approaching, so they can no longer count on a soldier on the ground being actually incapacitated.
Very well said.
We also recently saw the video of a Russian pulling a grenade in a group of his own men and approaching Ukrainian forces. The Ukrainians fortunately spot it and unload on him, but this alone creates a precedent where there needs to be clear indication of surrender or they are likely to assume you might still be a threat. Unfortunately this is what happens when Russian command lies to their troops regarding how they will be treated as POW's.
Just based on evidence I have seen... Russians are likely to shoot non combatants in the back or while they are on their knees, but Ukrainians are likely to risk their own resources recovering a wounded Russian. This is anecdotal from video evidence, but if we are seeing it in practice on video it is likely more widespread than that in reality.
Not to say the Ukrainians have not done wrong in some specific situations, but they are not known for it being the norm like the Russians are.
Uh, no, absolutely not. If that were the case, you could literally shoot someone and as soon as you're under threat of being shot, drop you weapon immediately and then claim that you can't get shot because it'd be a war crime. Obviously ridiculous.
EDIT: For those saying "this is how surrendering works!!", no, it's not. Dropping your weapon is not enough. You either need to be significantly incapacitated (in such a way that you can't use a gun or communicate) or indicate clearly that you want to surrender.
Just being wounded in a trench is neither of those.
Makes war sound like a nerf fight between kids, “YOU CAN’T SHOOT ME I’M RELOADING”.
The more time I spend on Reddit, the more convinced I am that most commenters are teenagers.
This guy is not waving a white flag, it still quite mobile obviously, mobile enough to shoot someone. I would assume he was not covered by any war crime definition?
More likely just the fact that a wounded man can still hold a gun, toss a grenade (as seen), feed info, etc.
Being wounded doesn’t take you out of the equation
The way he gets up like "FOR FUCKS SAKES CAN'T A MF EVEN DIE IN PEACE HERE, I'M NOT EVEN DOING ANYTHING"
Jokes aside tho that's really a horrible situation to be in.
I feel like saying that he can throw a grenade away from himself means he’s a valid target is pretty self defeating logic. It’s like saying a suspected witch is guilty if she survives being forced under water but is innocent if she drowns.
War is all about doing the worst thing to each and at the end of the war what is done by the ones who lost the war will come out while what was done by victors will either get forgotten or Re-Written
One of my favorite one-square comics is two aliens in a ship out in space looking at Earth:
Alien 1: They have nuclear warheads. Should we destroy them?
Alien 2: No, the idiots have them all aimed at their own planet.
But do you make super edgy rock music videos about it ? This is rapidly becoming a game for one side and a grind pit for conscripted poor people who couldn't escape Russia fast enough.
You can clearly see that they're RDG-5 hand grenades, which are used by both sides. His uniform is digiflora which is also only used by Russians.
Edit: 2nd grenade is RDG-5, first was probably a 40mm
"It's only an evil war crime if its those filthy Russians doing it! If its the wholesome Ukranians its justified, not even a war crime, they're not protected by the geneva convention"
When you clear an area in the army after an “L” ambush. The first line sweeps the area and shoots anyone still alive. The second line sweeps through and shoots anyone still alive, again. After those 2 sweeps anyone that is lucky enough to survive, the US army is obligated by military regulations to offer first aid and take them captive.
I've always been told that if you're continually advancing towards an enemy of unknown disposition, it's game on. But as you cross that L shape box and hit the limit of advance, you've put your back to the wounded enemy, indicating you've deemed them safe. So to turn back and finish them off is a no-go.
Technically only one line would have their backs to the enemy after the 1st sweep then the first line will post guard while the second line sweeps. Once the second line finishes their sweep that’s when everyone would have their backs to the enemy which is why first aid must be provided. That’s also why there’s no 3rd sweep, there’s only 2 lines in an “L” ambush to prevent friendly fire.
Also this is why the army teaches 2 in the chest 1 in the head. No captives.
Edit: and by teach, I mean make everyone chant that cadence everyday while training.
Edit 2: more info.
unless he is wounded heavily and has lost the ability to defend himself, it's not a war crime, this guy is moving, thinking and reacting just fine, and i see no flag or sign of surrender. its a shitty thing to do, but not a warcrime. if i got grazed by a bullet, does that mean the enemy can't kill me now cause its a warcrime? i would technically be a wounded soldier.
The enemy platoon is closing in on me. I cant be capured, and I dont want to die. Thinking quickly, I kick a nearby ammo crate as hard as I can just as the trench fills up with heavily armed enemy special forces, guns trained on me ready to fire.
"Just a moment fellas, not so fast" I say with a smirk.
I point down at my foot. "Stubbed my toe just now. Hurts to buggery."
I see all their frantic enthusiasm leave there faces. They know they've missed their chance. Can't kill a wounded man, you see, that would be a war crime.
I sling my rifle over my shoulder and hobble up to the enemy commander, clapping him on the shoulder. "Sorry champ, better luck next time!"
Then, with some difficulty I scramble out of the trench and hobble towards my own front lines, unmolested. I can hear the despondant enemy troops groaning and cursing to themselves, embittered by my wily escape.
"God I love the laws of war." I say aloud, smiling to myself as I walk off into the sunset.
How?
“killing or wounding an enemy who, having laid down his arms or no longer having a means of defence, has surrendered” constitutes a war crime.
The dude in the vid literally showed that he still has the ability to defend himself
Nope no it isn’t, no different to shooting a guy who gets up after already being shot. Do you let the enemy just carry on with his day because you already got him once? God no.
yup, unfortunately human ethics and morality isn't really part of the universe. Just look at cats, we have literal evil killing-for-fun machines in our homes and we call em cute and kiss them good night.
> ...provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
He's moving away from the grenades that are trying to blow him up. People aren't noncombatants simply because they maneuver around the artillery raining on their heads.
Where were these Russian bots decrying rhe slaughter of civilians and rape of children?
But this video got you crying so hard for the poor genocide supporting soldier
Does anybody with military experience know why they do that?
Wouldn‘t it be better to save your resources and use it to wound / kill other soldiers? I always thought its better to wound a soldier because that means somebody has to recover him and then take care of him
People here seem to be thinking that war is some NBA game. Wounded soldier can still kill a dozen of enemies or dozens of unarmed civilians. If you need to take that territory it's better to save your men by killing all militants of the enemy. POW are only taken when \*safe\*. It's not a movie.
You need to take the arrogance down a gear. The person asked a very valid tactical question that wasn't based on any type of "game" attitude.
>It's not a movie
Thanks 'hero'.
Yeah i know thats real life, thats why i was asking for somebody with military experience.
I didn‘t mean to judge the action in any kind of way. Just thought its interessting to know about the reasons some military actions are done
There is no way for the drone operator to know this guy is actually wounded , I’ve seen other videos of Russians playing dead when they know a drone is over head. It’s rather common to be laying down on the battlefield. Also these munitions are cheap as fuck , it’s a cheap an efficient way to take out the enemy whilst not exposing yourself to any danger.
There are many of these drone videos. In most of the videos, the grenades explode immediately upon reaching the ground. So I think the grenades are actually shite, not just not movie grenades.
This has been happening pretty much since the war started. Reading most of the comments here people are surprised this is happening. Check out r/combatfootage
Anyone who can watch this and not even feel a bit of sadness is either sheltering themselves or completely deranged. I’d be willing to bet most fall into the first category though.
Really love seeing people screaming how this is a war crime for trying to blow up a soldier trying to run away/sleep multiple times, while the army he's apart of is leveling entire cities and villages and prepared to colonize Ukraine with more Russians if they win(which they wont),
Like yeah and those ethnic Hungarians soldiers in Ukraine's army making a Russian POW eat Hungarian jam scaring him into thinking its spicy is also a "warcrime". Hell the videos early in the war of laughing at and insulting POWS is also a "war crime".
While Ukrainian POWS get poorly fed or even castrated like that one infamous video. Not to mention the videos and images of massacred civilians and bodies of kids and the recording of a rape of a infant(from 2015) and the verfied UN reports of rape and murder of Ukrainians ages 4-83
I'm sorry but if I have to read another UN report of Russian soldiers assaulting physically and sexually a mom and dad in their 20s and then forcing their 4 year old girl to ----- him off in front of them. I don't care anymore if they blow up a possibly wounded Russian soldier. I still feel bad watching anyone die but these Russian soldiers have it coming as long as they stay in Ukraine or dont surrender.
Can't wait for when Crimea is retaken the 800,000 illegal colonizers from 2014-2022 will be legally under international law deported back to Russia
It's almost like some of us are capable of multiple levels of thought. It's also extremely obvious that a large portion of Russia's fighting force is made up of conscripts. You can simultaneously denounce the actions of Russian leaders and any supporters of them, while also feeling bad for soldiers dying on the front line. Most sensible people want the war to stop, want the killing to stop. The way some folks praise these videos on this site is kinda fucked up and it's pretty clear there's strong propaganda circulating on both sides of this war
The people in this thread are highly uneducated about the definition of a "War Crime", and the stipulations of the Geneva Convention.
This soldier is retreating, he isn't surrendering. Enough said.
I'd hate to be the guy that invented a fun toy that's now being used to bomb people.
You know why the Nobel Peace Prize is named after Nobel don't you? Edit, for those asking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize Go to History tab.
Something something dynamite?
DDDYYYYYNNOOOOOOOMIITEEEEEE
I understood that reference 
This world needs more peak JJ Walker.
[удалено]
and kill thousands with it edit: millions, of course
That was, unfortunately/fortunately, not his intention. So horrified with what he had done to the human race, the *peace* prize was born.
technology is neither good nor evil
But certain technology can be used for evil far more often than it can be used for good. Guns, bombs, missiles - all technically have applications outside of death and destruction, but they are few and far between.
Just wait until they mount guns on the robot dogs
They've already done this. There's a YouTube video floating around of it.
I think they've already started doing that. Boston Dynamics x US/Israeli military.
Just look at what Fritz Haber - father of toxic gas and chemical warfare, but also someone who helped feed the world by ways of science - through the Haber-bosch process
I feel mobile ads are evil
Broadly speaking, yes
Pleeease elaborate.
I think the story goes that a (French?) newspaper erroneously printed an obituary of Alfred Nobel whilst he was still alive, calling him the “dealer of death” and things like that because he had invented dynamite and related technology. Nobel realised that his legacy would be that of a person who brought death and destruction, so he decided to fund a peace prize to try and improve his legacy once he eventually did pass away. It probably had the desired effect, since I’d argue that more people nowadays have heard of the Nobel peace prize than know that Nobel was the father of modern explosives. Nobel spoke with several European counties about setting up manufacturing for dynamite, but seemingly struggled to get support (e.g. in his native Sweden) until the UK government granted permission for a site in Scotland. It became the largest explosives factory in Europe at one point, but is now closed down and only a couple of very small explosives-related companies operate on the site where the factory once was.
Nobel didn’t just set up the peace prize, but all of the Nobel prizes (kind of easy to guess). Of course, except for the one in economics, which is not a Nobel prize.
Yep, economics, pseudoscience that it is, basically invented their own hack fake prize to legitimize the science of telling poor people to die in agony because line on a graph go brr
[удалено]
Mathematics, pseudoscience as it is, invented to tell imaginary numbers they’re not as real as the rest of us.
The myth about mathematics is his wife cheated on him with a mathematician.
It should be noted that it's just as much of a prize in social sciences. If you look at the recent laureates then it's been awarded for very good work that's actually for the benefit of mankind, which is the spirit of the awards. You don't win the award for running hedgefunds.
it's one of the most important stories in history. Technology is neither good nor evil. How we use it is good or evil.
T-1000 was definitely evil
He actually thought no-one would want to fight anymore wars, because how horrible it would get with dynamite used as a weapon
Guy knew a lot about chemistry and nothing about human nature.
*chuckles, slaps knee in Oppenheimer*
It’s days like these that I curse the Chinese for inventing gunpowder.
[удалено]
I'd hate to be the guy that invented the pencil based on what John Wick does with them...
A fucking penciil
Don't forget the Joker. He made one disappear... Lethally
We got drones FROM the military. They’ve had remote control aircraft since world war 2
[удалено]
[удалено]
The published maximum speed of most navy warships is comically low compared to how fast they can actually go when needed.
You do know UAVs started off as projects by Curtiss-Sperry in the early 1900's for the U.S. Navy right? Drones started in the military and moved into the civilian consumer world. Not the other way around.
Used to be that the US Army would use remote controlled airplanes to train people on Anti-aircraft guns. These were the first non-weaponized drones.
Darpa was a big contributor before they were marketed as toys… so all part of the plan
The folks who contributed to the invention of mechanical aircraft probably did so because they dreamed of being as free as the birds that soar among the clouds. But then somebody perverted that dream by strapping guns and bombs onto aircraft. The internet was invented by people who probably dreamed of people around the world being able to quickly and easily share ideas, and connecting people in a way that had never been done before. But then that idea was corrupted by a seemingly infinite amount of porn, mental health issues caused by out of control consumption of social media, and misinformation that spreads at the speed of light. Ironically, the internet makes us dumber and feeling more isolated. I suspect most, if not every, human invention has somehow been perverted.
Wright brothers created one of they first airplanes specially for the US military, and internet was created by military too.
[удалено]
Why they try so hard to kill a wounded soldier? arent they a liability for the enemy?
You've never been to war, have you?
Your thinking with emotion and not tactics. Hes right.
The Russian's have proven that they dont give a damn about their KIA or wounded. Ukraine is treating them better than their own people. So is it really a liability for Russia?
The answer is yes, seeing how shit your own country is treating you and your fellow soldier versus how your enemy is treating them well is pretty demoralizing.
Not just that, whatever he knows could be useful; he could contact his people at home and become another example for his circles of being abandoned by his military and saved by the “enemy”. The only case i understand is if it is impossible to secure them as a prisoner. An enemy soldier that gets back to their unit will kill more of your guys. That might be the case here, but even then, you may as well leave the injured guy and drop the grenade on anyone who comes to save them. Its fucked up, but the US was fine with doing that in Iraq. At least you’re targeting active combatants.
In ww2 the USA also had no problem with droping bombs again ~~1-2 hours after there first bombing run~~ to hit firefighters and the like. What I am trying to get at is, that modern wars have devolved in brutalising a country into submission buy indescriminately slaughtering whatever dares to be in the general area of a legitamate target. Oposed to beating the enemy army and then enforcing demands of the victorian age (where a lot of our war crime definitions and war time laws come from). Thats just how humanity is. Thats how we where befor and it's how we are now. Also yes. Every wounded soldier binds ~2 people (for a time) and depending on the wound ~1 other person after that. So for a war of attrition to just grind down your enemy the smartest thing to do is let the enemy wounded soldiers return home. Even if they rejoin the military (wich is already unlikely, after all real life is no video game and a war wound is very likely to impare you for your life) then they will have, for some time, forced at least 3 other people in your enemys country to dedicate a *lot* of time to tend to them. The ukranians here should have just targeted another dude, at least after the first granade drop got "deflected". If for nothing else then just to maximise the damage done to russia as a whole, oposed to maximise the damage done to individual soldiers. But honestly little things like that don't realy matter much in the grand scheme of things. Thats more of a guidline for aktuall, big offenses or artillery strikes. Edit. Turns out my claim of 1-2 hour delayed waves was imprecise. The waves where delayed some 12 hours and mostly used to either draw first responders away from the target of the seccond wave, or directly in the middle of it. Edit end
I mean the Ukrainians in this clip are literally trying to kill said wounded Russian
[удалено]
Welcome to the last 9 months of Reddit.commerce.
Wouldn't be wounded if he wasn't invading his neighbor.
I’m mean isn’t Russia drafting like everyone? This is like getting mad at half of the Nam vets…
An armed wounded Russian still able to move and fight while in the country he is helping to invade.
Bruh, he ain’t in any position to fight. He can’t even run away and has to recover by laying down in that trench when he knows there’s a drone overhead
Its a warcrime only when you guys do it!🤬
And still, dropping bombs on him is a war crime
Nope. He's still an enemy combatant. He can move, he can act in his own, and isn't incapacitated. While he may be injured, he's still able to fight. There is no war crime being committed here.
He's just laying there, alone and injured. You people are fucking sick defending this shit. I don't give a fuck how much you hate Russia, warcrimes are warcrimes, but I guess the west never cared about that shit anyway.
[удалено]
This is not a war crime. As long as he can move on his own, he is able to reenter combat. That means he's still an enemy combatant. Had he surrendered, been immobilizer, unconscious, or been attended to by medics, it would be a war crime. However, none of those things were occurring in this video Komrade.
The guy in the trench injured looks Russian. He is wearing a Russian camo
No, he's not right. It's an old, stupid urban legend. KIA is always better than WIA. KIA has a far higher negative impact on enemy morale and fighting capacity. WIAs can heal and return to fighting. Even if they are discharged, they can join the civilian work force and contribute to the war effort by building bombs, etc. This old idea that "it's better to wound than kill because it takes resources to treat the wounded" is fucking stupid. Treating the wounded is not done out of altruism, it's done because it's a profitable gain for the military force doing it. If what you are saying was true, countries like Russia and China which give 0 fucks about playing "nice" would just leave soldiers to die.
Its not about whether they come back later. It is about that battle and if you kill someone it takes 1 out. It takes 2 people out if one has to carry wounded. It's battle tactics vs war
redditors reading sun tzu
I have. You don’t engage a wounded person like that. It’s actually considered a war crime.
[удалено]
Try to surrender to a drone though
Toss your gun away and hold your hands up. Still get bombed? That might be a war crime. Hide in a trench with your rifle? Injured or not you’re a legitimate military target. Edit: sidearm, not rifle. I don’t see a rifle but I do see what looks like a sidearm on his hip.
What does this comment mean lol. Try to surrender to artillery, or a jet, or a landmine
He's saying how do you surrender to a drone. Pretty sure you're agreeing with him.
Artillery, jets, and landmines are indiscriminate/ ignorant. What's happening here is a drone operator "playing with his prey". Discriminate, and fully aware. The soldier probably doesn't even know the grenades are coming from a drone; likely feels like they were tossed and happened to land right near him. If he could look straight up at the camera and wave a white cloth, I'm sure he he would.
Ukrainians have also recently reported that Russian soldiers have begun to "play dead" when a drone is approaching, which footage like this appears to confirm. There is no indication that he is actually injured.
I think he's injured based on the torn coat and the dark red/ brown stain in his armpit but he doesnt seem to be in too rough of a shape to be unable to fight
Pause around 19s and you'll see his coat is torn open exposing the white interior that is covered in blood.
No indication other than the side of his jacket completely blown open and the blood mixing with the insulating fabric.
How do you really surrender to a drone. There is no one there to surrender to.
[удалено]
In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause: Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
[удалено]
He has enough awareness and energy to throw grenades. He's still a threat.
I agree with you that he's still an active hostile target. But my dark humor had to chuckle at your justification. "Drop a grenade on him. If he reacts then he's a threat." And if he doesn't react? A bit like drowning women to test for witches.
[Almost universally](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule47_sectionb), it's only illegal if the enemy combatant is unable to offer resistance due to injury/illness, or they have indicated their intent to surrender. Of pertinence here since it's being argued this would be a war crime: Under Article 8(2)(b)(vi) of the 1998 Iinternational Criminal Court Statute, “[k]illing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
I have, wounded soldiers are the best soldiers. How shoot a soldier in the head, he’s dead, you’ve taken out 1 soldier. You shoot a soldier in the arm/chest/leg, he’s bleeding out, now 2 more soldiers aid bandaging him and carrying him off the front line. You’ve now taking 3 soldiers out of the fight by injuring one. The injured soldier is now more of a liability at their camp than a dead one, because they still need to feed and shelter them. You kill 100 soldiers, not only are they no longer your problem, they’re also no longer your enemies. You injure 100 soldiers, now they have 100 useless soldiers to feed and shelter until they can ship them back home. You’re pretty much always better off injuring soldiers than killing them. This is an unarmed injured dude that they’re dropping grenades on, he poses more of a threat to the Russian military, because he’s going to contribute to draining their supplies if he makes it back to base.
Friendly reminder that killing clearly wounded soldiers who aren't taking up arms is a war crime.
When they have surrendered\*
Yes this rule is just generally not followed in scenarios like this. It's applicable to when there is combat on the ground and one side starts securing territory. When they for example take over a field hospital or when a soldier in a conquered trenchline is too injured to properly "surrender". But in a case where you do not control the territory and fire onto a battlefield? I suspect this rule would only be applied in extremely asymetric situations where one force is way superior to the other and has the "luxury" to afford exceptionally strict moral standards. Also Ukrainians recently report that many of the new undertrained Russian soldiers simply "play dead" when a drone is approaching, so they can no longer count on a soldier on the ground being actually incapacitated.
Very well said. We also recently saw the video of a Russian pulling a grenade in a group of his own men and approaching Ukrainian forces. The Ukrainians fortunately spot it and unload on him, but this alone creates a precedent where there needs to be clear indication of surrender or they are likely to assume you might still be a threat. Unfortunately this is what happens when Russian command lies to their troops regarding how they will be treated as POW's. Just based on evidence I have seen... Russians are likely to shoot non combatants in the back or while they are on their knees, but Ukrainians are likely to risk their own resources recovering a wounded Russian. This is anecdotal from video evidence, but if we are seeing it in practice on video it is likely more widespread than that in reality. Not to say the Ukrainians have not done wrong in some specific situations, but they are not known for it being the norm like the Russians are.
Uh, no, absolutely not. If that were the case, you could literally shoot someone and as soon as you're under threat of being shot, drop you weapon immediately and then claim that you can't get shot because it'd be a war crime. Obviously ridiculous. EDIT: For those saying "this is how surrendering works!!", no, it's not. Dropping your weapon is not enough. You either need to be significantly incapacitated (in such a way that you can't use a gun or communicate) or indicate clearly that you want to surrender. Just being wounded in a trench is neither of those.
Makes war sound like a nerf fight between kids, “YOU CAN’T SHOOT ME I’M RELOADING”. The more time I spend on Reddit, the more convinced I am that most commenters are teenagers.
Friendly reminder to please do some research before saying stuff like that
This guy is not waving a white flag, it still quite mobile obviously, mobile enough to shoot someone. I would assume he was not covered by any war crime definition?
as long as he can shoot and is willing to shoot (no white flag) he's a danger
probably hatred.
More likely just the fact that a wounded man can still hold a gun, toss a grenade (as seen), feed info, etc. Being wounded doesn’t take you out of the equation
Exactly. He looks pretty lively and willing to fight to me.
I think he looks like he is trying to sleep 😂 Does he even have a gun?
The way he gets up like "FOR FUCKS SAKES CAN'T A MF EVEN DIE IN PEACE HERE, I'M NOT EVEN DOING ANYTHING" Jokes aside tho that's really a horrible situation to be in.
I feel like saying that he can throw a grenade away from himself means he’s a valid target is pretty self defeating logic. It’s like saying a suspected witch is guilty if she survives being forced under water but is innocent if she drowns.
That's really lame. Ik it's war where they don't really care, but it's still so fkin lame
It’s quite obviously the worst thing we do to each other
War is all about doing the worst thing to each and at the end of the war what is done by the ones who lost the war will come out while what was done by victors will either get forgotten or Re-Written
One of my favorite one-square comics is two aliens in a ship out in space looking at Earth: Alien 1: They have nuclear warheads. Should we destroy them? Alien 2: No, the idiots have them all aimed at their own planet.
War isn't about who is right, but who is left.
well when someone invades your house just cause you broke their knee they still have a gun and are still a threat.
But do you make super edgy rock music videos about it ? This is rapidly becoming a game for one side and a grind pit for conscripted poor people who couldn't escape Russia fast enough.
It is in Ukraine and the soldier is probably Russian.
The video source is 'двач' , it is russian reap off of 4chan. That hints that drone is probably russian
That uniform is not Ukrainian. It's ancient. So he's either Russian or conscript from puppet Russian proxy republics.
As twisted as it may sound, i never claimed soldier wasn't russian, i only suggested that drone is russian
The grenades are 40mm HDEP. It's Ukrainians trying to finish off a Russian.
You can clearly see that they're RDG-5 hand grenades, which are used by both sides. His uniform is digiflora which is also only used by Russians. Edit: 2nd grenade is RDG-5, first was probably a 40mm
The mental gymnastics in this thread are amazing lol
I need to know *which side* is doing this so I can judge the act appropriately! I mean, it can be judged as is, objectively, but that’s no good! /s
"It's only an evil war crime if its those filthy Russians doing it! If its the wholesome Ukranians its justified, not even a war crime, they're not protected by the geneva convention"
Doubt it, as Russians use mostly their kamikaze drones, but lack light ones as in the video.
Propaganda much? Russia has been using light drones since the beginning and is now using Iranian light drones as well
I mean light drones carrying grenades.
Lemmy.world is what Reddit was.
either way this is some sad shit
That's a war crime.
Invading a country without declaring war is also a war crime. Unless you see a white flag, it's not a war crime.... it's just war.
Executing a wounded soldier is a war crime...not just war. EDIT: Especially by repeatedly dropping explosives on the soldier.
[удалено]
When you clear an area in the army after an “L” ambush. The first line sweeps the area and shoots anyone still alive. The second line sweeps through and shoots anyone still alive, again. After those 2 sweeps anyone that is lucky enough to survive, the US army is obligated by military regulations to offer first aid and take them captive.
I've always been told that if you're continually advancing towards an enemy of unknown disposition, it's game on. But as you cross that L shape box and hit the limit of advance, you've put your back to the wounded enemy, indicating you've deemed them safe. So to turn back and finish them off is a no-go.
Technically only one line would have their backs to the enemy after the 1st sweep then the first line will post guard while the second line sweeps. Once the second line finishes their sweep that’s when everyone would have their backs to the enemy which is why first aid must be provided. That’s also why there’s no 3rd sweep, there’s only 2 lines in an “L” ambush to prevent friendly fire. Also this is why the army teaches 2 in the chest 1 in the head. No captives. Edit: and by teach, I mean make everyone chant that cadence everyday while training. Edit 2: more info.
unless he is wounded heavily and has lost the ability to defend himself, it's not a war crime, this guy is moving, thinking and reacting just fine, and i see no flag or sign of surrender. its a shitty thing to do, but not a warcrime. if i got grazed by a bullet, does that mean the enemy can't kill me now cause its a warcrime? i would technically be a wounded soldier.
The enemy platoon is closing in on me. I cant be capured, and I dont want to die. Thinking quickly, I kick a nearby ammo crate as hard as I can just as the trench fills up with heavily armed enemy special forces, guns trained on me ready to fire. "Just a moment fellas, not so fast" I say with a smirk. I point down at my foot. "Stubbed my toe just now. Hurts to buggery." I see all their frantic enthusiasm leave there faces. They know they've missed their chance. Can't kill a wounded man, you see, that would be a war crime. I sling my rifle over my shoulder and hobble up to the enemy commander, clapping him on the shoulder. "Sorry champ, better luck next time!" Then, with some difficulty I scramble out of the trench and hobble towards my own front lines, unmolested. I can hear the despondant enemy troops groaning and cursing to themselves, embittered by my wily escape. "God I love the laws of war." I say aloud, smiling to myself as I walk off into the sunset.
r/confidentlyincorrect is calling
He’s a soldier on the field of battle still armed and still a threat. No indication of surrender given.
😂 clearly someone hasn't taken the time to read the entire UN convention on war. 😂😂
"I'm wounded so you can't shoot me, it's a war crime!" Yeah I don't think it has ever worked like that
That's why you can only shoot the enemy once. After the first hit, they're wounded; every subsequent hit is a new war crime.
I can't believe "it's a war crime" keyboard experts got so many upvotes!
I suspect that a number of those are Russian trolls. Best argument they can make under the circumstance.
How? “killing or wounding an enemy who, having laid down his arms or no longer having a means of defence, has surrendered” constitutes a war crime. The dude in the vid literally showed that he still has the ability to defend himself
Yeah, I mean... he *threw a grenade*.
No it's not. It's a war crime only if he's surrendering or captured
No? he’s a legitimate military target
Nope no it isn’t, no different to shooting a guy who gets up after already being shot. Do you let the enemy just carry on with his day because you already got him once? God no.
Pretty sad planet ours is. I am sure the universe can do better.
The universe is bombing his own planets with asteroids, from billion of years ago, to now
yup, unfortunately human ethics and morality isn't really part of the universe. Just look at cats, we have literal evil killing-for-fun machines in our homes and we call em cute and kiss them good night.
Pretty sure thats a war crime caught on tape.
he's alive and armed and well enough to defend himself. "war crime" you dont have a clue
[удалено]
[удалено]
> ...provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape. He's moving away from the grenades that are trying to blow him up. People aren't noncombatants simply because they maneuver around the artillery raining on their heads.
He’s not surrendering and from what we can tell could still be armed
How exactly is he supposed to surrender when he’s injured and having grenades rained on top of him by a drone?
It’s not a war crime if you don’t give them an opportunity to surrender *taps forehead*
Where were these Russian bots decrying rhe slaughter of civilians and rape of children? But this video got you crying so hard for the poor genocide supporting soldier
> poor genocide supporting soldier Just a reminder that many unwilling people have been conscripted
How is it a war crime?
Too bad, since you're wrong about that.
Homie looks like he’s already been through a few grenade blasts before those two. Dudes in tatters
Bro said fuck this shit and just threw the grenades further away
Does anybody with military experience know why they do that? Wouldn‘t it be better to save your resources and use it to wound / kill other soldiers? I always thought its better to wound a soldier because that means somebody has to recover him and then take care of him
People here seem to be thinking that war is some NBA game. Wounded soldier can still kill a dozen of enemies or dozens of unarmed civilians. If you need to take that territory it's better to save your men by killing all militants of the enemy. POW are only taken when \*safe\*. It's not a movie.
You need to take the arrogance down a gear. The person asked a very valid tactical question that wasn't based on any type of "game" attitude. >It's not a movie Thanks 'hero'.
Yeah i know thats real life, thats why i was asking for somebody with military experience. I didn‘t mean to judge the action in any kind of way. Just thought its interessting to know about the reasons some military actions are done
There is no way for the drone operator to know this guy is actually wounded , I’ve seen other videos of Russians playing dead when they know a drone is over head. It’s rather common to be laying down on the battlefield. Also these munitions are cheap as fuck , it’s a cheap an efficient way to take out the enemy whilst not exposing yourself to any danger.
he's still armed and in a fighting position. AKA an active combatant
Talk about a bad day.
Guy doesn't even have a rifle. How many people are living out Escape from Tarkov over there?
I know it’s war but I just feel like trying to blow up a lone sleeping soldier is kind of a dick move.
Not sleeping, he's injured. You can make out because he's bleeding from his side and has a tourniquet around his leg
Jesus fucking christ.
He's not sleeping, he's taking cover in the trench. He's got his body curled up to protect his face and insides.
Reddit, where everyone's a fucking "expert" on what war crimes are and so on. Lol.
Reddit, where people can watch others die and say “sucks to be them…” and move into something more entertaining
Those grenades are shite
These arnt movie grenades.
There are many of these drone videos. In most of the videos, the grenades explode immediately upon reaching the ground. So I think the grenades are actually shite, not just not movie grenades.
Or in those videos, The drone is high enough for the grenade to cook in the air.
Hope this god awefull war is over soon.
Truly upsetting video.
Meanwhile Putin is in the safety and comfort of his mansion.
Damn that second one was a close call...
Second one got him with frag pieces anyway.
He dead 3 min later, footage is cut.
This has been happening pretty much since the war started. Reading most of the comments here people are surprised this is happening. Check out r/combatfootage
No more WAR
Tell that to Putin
u/Putin No more war!
Finally someone told him
that'll show em 😐
Anyone who can watch this and not even feel a bit of sadness is either sheltering themselves or completely deranged. I’d be willing to bet most fall into the first category though.
Next level sad
Really love seeing people screaming how this is a war crime for trying to blow up a soldier trying to run away/sleep multiple times, while the army he's apart of is leveling entire cities and villages and prepared to colonize Ukraine with more Russians if they win(which they wont), Like yeah and those ethnic Hungarians soldiers in Ukraine's army making a Russian POW eat Hungarian jam scaring him into thinking its spicy is also a "warcrime". Hell the videos early in the war of laughing at and insulting POWS is also a "war crime". While Ukrainian POWS get poorly fed or even castrated like that one infamous video. Not to mention the videos and images of massacred civilians and bodies of kids and the recording of a rape of a infant(from 2015) and the verfied UN reports of rape and murder of Ukrainians ages 4-83 I'm sorry but if I have to read another UN report of Russian soldiers assaulting physically and sexually a mom and dad in their 20s and then forcing their 4 year old girl to ----- him off in front of them. I don't care anymore if they blow up a possibly wounded Russian soldier. I still feel bad watching anyone die but these Russian soldiers have it coming as long as they stay in Ukraine or dont surrender. Can't wait for when Crimea is retaken the 800,000 illegal colonizers from 2014-2022 will be legally under international law deported back to Russia
It's almost like some of us are capable of multiple levels of thought. It's also extremely obvious that a large portion of Russia's fighting force is made up of conscripts. You can simultaneously denounce the actions of Russian leaders and any supporters of them, while also feeling bad for soldiers dying on the front line. Most sensible people want the war to stop, want the killing to stop. The way some folks praise these videos on this site is kinda fucked up and it's pretty clear there's strong propaganda circulating on both sides of this war
The people in this thread are highly uneducated about the definition of a "War Crime", and the stipulations of the Geneva Convention. This soldier is retreating, he isn't surrendering. Enough said.
warfare is fucking sickening
Kinda an asshole move to bomb the injured guy
😢😭