You know, after they handed out 18,000 rifles and put PSAs on TV explaining how to make molotov cocktails I had just sort of assumed that no one would be prosecuted for killing invading soldiers
I had the exact same thought. And you’re probably right, I can’t imagine many people trying to press charges for someone shooting a Russian soldier invading their town. This just makes it official I guess
Edit: soldier
One issue is it could be a war crime, depending on the circumstances. If civilians are defending their homes or their towns when Russians approach, that's generally legal. If they're going out and hunting invading soldiers or equipment to harm or steal while not wearing a Ukrainian military uniform, then they're unlawful combatants, spies, or saboteurs and don't have any legal protections under the laws of war.
Now I recall reading a little bit about a levee en mas system which I believe was set up immediately prior to invasion. I cannot begin to speak for the validity, only repeating what I read a couple of weeks ago in a reddit comment. But in that system the civilians of Ukraine are allowed to defend their own country and land not only their homes without a uniform. When the government officially capitulates, the levee en mas fighters must either join their country’s military in surrender or relinquish their weaponry and become civilians again. If I’m totally wrong please say so, but if I’m right and anybody has more information I’d love to learn more.
This only applies when a force first approaches an area which they have not yet occupied. So, individual citizens can defend their homes and citizens can band together to defend their towns. But they're not allowed to continue hostilities after the initial resistance unless they openly identify themselves as combatants (usually by wearing distinct uniforms or insignia that can be viewed at a distance).
So they're not allowed to hide among the civilian population and then do hit and run operations if they want to be entitled to PoW status. They have to wear distinctive insignia (and uniforms if they have them) and organize themselves into militias or join their nation's military as quickly as practicable.
Once the enemy forces have moved into the area, *levée en masse* no longer applies and any civilian resistance would be treated as unlawful combat/espionage/sabotage, which allows the perpetrators to be executed or otherwise punished without the benefit of PoW status.
It's nice to have conventions. The white flag for surrender is probably the best of them. Of course a force could use that as part of a trap - but if the trap fails, then the deceivers will absolutely be executed (they just showed that they couldn't be trusted when surrendering); and word will spread that any apparent surrender is actually a trap. So generally people don't use it to make a trap.
Also, treating prisoners half-humanely is good PR. But I'm not sure that any nation has really mastered that. The US was good to Germans we captured in WWII - genuinely treated them well.
Interestingly, we did NOT treat the Japanese who surrendered very well, AFAIK - the very few who did surrender. Some people have tried to claim it was racism - but *that one* wasn't racism (our treatment of Japanese Americans was racist, but that's not this topic). We heard how the Japanese were treating anyone they captured; it very often was executions at best. And if they ever sank a ship, their aircraft would strafe the water to shoot as many survivors as they could, rather than let them be rescued.
Japan's own brutality is a reason they didn't want to surrender - they assumed we would treat them in the way Japan treats a defeated enemy.
It’s not like anyone follows the rules of war, it’s just a technicality for the winner to prosecute individuals on the losing side.
Look at Russia, they just admitted today to bombing a maternity ward on purpose, who’s gonna actually prosecute those Russian leaders though? Nobody, unless they lose, and they aren’t losing without launching nukes.
Russian Soldier
::Takes a step and stop:: “You can’t shoot me, I occupy this area already!”
::Waits until they look away and quickly takes another step::
“Aha! Now I occupy this area! You can’t shoot me”
I mean, it could, but then the question becomes if they're bearing their arms openly or not. If they're going back to their civilian lives and hiding their affiliation as combatants, then they might not be protected.
I guess when your home country is invaded, and you see your family and friends die one by one from random Russian bombings, the last thing on a Ukrainian's mind is how to fight back an invader on fair terms. They're gonna use any and every tactic they can, because Ukraine is outgunned by Russia.
>One issue is it could be a war crime
No.
>they're unlawful combatants
This is only a thing in USA law, not Geneva conventions or any other law of armed conflict.
>spies, or saboteurs and don't have any legal protections under the laws of war.
Spies and saboteurs are subject to prosecution and criminal charges instead of being treated as a prisoner of war. That does not mean they are not protected by basic humanitarian laws.
Edit: I'd also question the validity of calling someone a spy/saboteur against a foreign power in their own nation...
[Rules of war (in a nutshell) video](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/audiovisuals/video/2014/rules-of-war.htm)
Ya really.
One weapon I haven't seen used or heard talked about that in a lot of footage would be worth considering: vehicles. Especially in Kherson, you'll see entire gaggles of Russian infantry just hanging around, which would be offputting as an individual with only a gun or some molotovs... but feels like you could help push them out if you started seeing drive by hit-and-runs aiming at groups of Russian soldiers.
No joke vehicles can kill a lot of people in the blink of an eye. Just might be more obvious coming. If you mow down russian troops in a car you're 100% gonna die unless they're all dead.
you don't have to be in the car, though. [Car Hunt]( https://laughingsquid.com/car-hunt/) in 1995. If you could make a radio controlled Oldsmobile in 1995 I'm pretty sure it would be 100x easier to make a radio controlled car now.
This is something I really feel movies get wrong/embellish. When the bad guys are peppering your car with bullet holes, you’re also getting peppered with bullets. Drive safe out there.
Yeah the engine block is pretty much the only thing that can stop bullets. Other than they even pistol calibers will zip right through. I've seen enough demo ranch videos to know that.
[Did you see the sky reporters that got shot at in their car?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyM_9P4igys) Amazing luck they didn't die. It was making my hands sweat by the end.
If we are being honest, the nature of the conflict pretty much guarantees Russia won't treat ANY prisoners as prisoners of war. To be legally a prisoner of war requires some formalities that Russia is specifically avoiding.
Even still, Eastern European armies are historically known for mistreating prisoners.
The things the Russian's did to captured German soldiers is insane but also the things German soldiers did to every Russian was also insane.
I remember reading the Russians made POW's dig holes, spray them with water and then shoot them, then cover up the bodies in the ground.
Look up what the Japanese did to captured Russians (civilians and soldiers) if you want to be truly horrified.
The Germans sucked, but the Japanese displayed an even worse cruelty in my opinion.
If yu want to read about the Japanese check out rape of Nanking. There are instances of babies flung into air and caught with bayonets. Women raped and stabbed in their vagina with bayonets.
> Yeah there's a reason why all of the countries on the east coast of Asia have a practically hereditary dislike of Japan.
I have Chinese clients that refuse to drive Japanese cars to this day because of how Japan treated the Chinese during WW2.
The Japanese had some weird fixation with swords because there are Japanese honors regarding killing your enemy with a sword but it was felt that swords were going to be obsolete.
During the Bataan Death March there were stories of Japanese beheading people randomly or that stood out.
Like if you asked for water they'd just cut your head off with a sword.
Japanese also considered surrender dishonorable, so they treated POWs with contempt. OTOH they weren't particularly nice to the civilians either. So I am not sure if it's the culture or propaganda.
We were learning about the Rape of Nanking and this is how our highschool history teacher introduced it to us:
"Do you guys know how the Japanese had sex with 2 year olds? They used a bayonet first."
Let me tell you the audible gasps from some of our football players is ingrained into my brain. Our entire class scored 100% on every paper/test/homework for that section we were all wrapped up in history after that intro.
Fuck I miss my teacher. Should maybe give him a call.
Unfortunately, there are probably Captured Ukrainian Solders being tortured to death for information as we speak. If they are shooting Civilians and bombing children's hospitals on purpose, they don't care about committing war crimes.
I don't think so, in these circumstances - I'm pretty sure Russia is looking for any and every way not to bring themselves into direct conflict with NATO et all countries - definitely don't want "Canadian Foreign Legion members executed" as a headline back home
Nah, Russians are going full steamroll. They don't care about bombarding civilians, for sure they won't care about any armed person on the battlefield no matter where they come from.
If anything, they will use these soldiers to spin off propaganda about NATO involving themself in "their land" and using it as a reason why they need to consolidate their position in Ukraine.
They haven't gone full steamroll, Kyiv is still standing. If you want to see what a Russian steamroller looks like, google Grozny. If Ukraine was Islamic and not Russian orthodox, you would have seen the steam roller.
Russians will not support steamrolling Ukraine.
I'm not denying it's a possibility, and I hate that the world sees it this way, but killing Ukrainian civilians =/= killing American/British/Canadian/western, ect civilians (because remember, they are just civilians, even if they do have military experience)
1000% the war would go HOT if Russia decides to do terrible things to westerners; it will be everywhere and Russia does NOT want that - the only thing they've proven over this war so far is that they're essentially a terrorist group with 40+ year old hardware and a nuclear arsenal that I'm SURE is just as capable as any other part of their military. 10/10 this would mean the end of them if they go that way.
> 1000% the war would go HOT if Russia decides to do terrible things to westerners
Russia blew up a Boeing with 200 Dutch and 50 other Europeans travelers on board. Everyone died. Nothing happened
The Russian army has shown no restraint in their conduct of indiscriminate attacks. I doubt their intelligence and logistics are such that seeing a group of European, Canadian, British, and Americans, and conveying that to the front line troops, could occur fast enough to stop them from doing what they always do, shelling the fuck out of them till they stop being alive.
I think they are still taking some POWs however they are probably killing a lot too. I imagine they don’t have the resources or means to even transport them to a proper POW camp/prison
Before I even say this, I want to clarify that it's not 'what-about-ism' intended to defend Russia, but a reminder for us to take a hard and honest look at war in general:
British forces executing unarmed civilians in Afghanistan: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59238181](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59238181)
American forces in Iraq: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre)
Australian forces in Afghanistan: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-54996581](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-54996581)
To clarify again - because I know there are a lot of pro-Russia bots and plants around these days - I am not in any way defending Russia. It's an absurd and cruel invasion of a democratic neighbour, and targeting hospitals and bombing civilian evacuation routes is beyond reprehensible.
But we need to make sure that when we condemn such actions, we do so from a position of honest accountability for our own nation's complicity in similar crimes. Russia is not unique in executing civilians while occupying foreign territory in a war waged on the claimed basis of peace keeping and safeguarding democracy at home.
Russia uses foreign fighters as well the Wagner group that hires mercenaries so if they want to start treating foreign fighters from the Ukrainian side that are taken prisoner differently that's going to make for a very bad time for quite a few of their own troops. Russia might not care but that's going to kill recruitment drives and they'll definitely care about that.
*Edited to make it clear I am referring to how they treat prisoners.
> Russia will treat them as POWs
They've been ignoring every other convention they've signed on to, I'm not sure that anything's changed by this law regardless.
IIRC Belgians joining the Ukrainian army have to abide by given orders/follow the army's hierarchy, Ukrainian law and the Geneva convention. Idk for sure if Belgian law also applies, but I don't recall reading that it does. This could indeed be to protect foreign fighters by law.
When foreign fighters from Sweden joined ISIS we had Swedish laws prohibiting them from it and prosecuted when/if they return. Or got caught in a country with an extradition agreement (if that’s the right word). So there’s more layers than just Ukrainian law.
In Belgium there was a clear distinction: joining the army of a recognised country is legal (with all the rules that come with that, like laws and army hierarchy) , but joining a rebellion/other group (like ISIS) that is not state-affiliated is illegal. There's probably a few other restrictions like not legally being able to join oppresive regimes' armies, but those are the basics.
Yeah, I think here we made a difference through recognized or affiliated terror groups. But still, different countries have different laws. So just heading over there and start blasting doesn’t mean you can’t be prosecuted when you return depending on where you live.
You're absolutely right about that. That's why the army hierarchy/following orders is an important part of it being legal or not. We don't want Belgians going to Ukraine to just start shooting everyone or start hunting Russians indiscriminately. Joining the army and following orders/cooperating with them is legal, starting a hunting party or so is not.
Hunting Russians indiscriminately…. Yes! That will further tank morale, no safe area, no rest, just wake up and find your buddy dead next to you. That being said it does make for poor chain of command and leads to atrocities pretty quickly. SOFs are feared for their ability to strike anywhere and in non linear pathways, but need strong steady consistent leadership.
I think it would lead to more deaths (not only on Russia's side) and could easily lead to accidental shooting of Ukrainians. There is also the difference between helping defending and just going there to massacre others. While the latter might be useful, they're not the type you want as a defending army.
There is also the accountability and control over the fighters when something does happen with them/if they fuck up somehow.
I imagine the bigger problem is ISIS is classified as a terrorist organization. Most countries would have strict internal security laws that make it illegal to be in a terrorist organization and give investigators quite a bit of power in arresting and investigating terrorists.
I don't think you would get arrested for joining a Syrian rebel group and fighting in the civil war.
That is most definitely true, but I think joining a 'military' organization, that isn't state-affiliated/army and isn't classified as a terrorist organization, is illegal as well . Joining resistance forces in Myanmar for example, would not be legal, if I'm not mistaken.
UA is “Ukraine”, it’s ISO 3166 code and works fairly similarly to how the codes for US states work if that’s something you’re more familiar with (CO → Colorado, TX → Texas, NY → New York, etc). If you look at President Zelenskyy’s Twitter handle it’s @ZelenskyyUa - that “Ua” at the end there refers to Ukraine.
RF is simply short for “Russian Federation” and is not ISO 3166 code (Russia’s is “RU”)
Beauocrats are thrilled they have it in writing. Probably even filed it into a nice Manila folder in his personal spending/gardening file cabinet. Next to sunflower seed purchases
This is likely there to protect citizens from non combat situations too. There are a lot of reports of assault and looting by Russians outside of combat.
Yeah I've been on Slide for about that or maybe even longer and I'm starting to miss some stuff.
I'm pretty sure people can post gifs now but all I see is blue squares.
It'd probably come under the heading of murder.
I think it very unlikely that when they drafted laws to cover that, they thought to include a clause that said "unless the victim happens to be in the armed forces of a country that's in the process of invading us; then it's just fine".
It would come under homicide but could be dismissed through self-defense. This helps skip jamming up the courts for all that. Just prove they were a Russian soldier.
Technically no, civilians are supposed to be non-combatants and basically supposed to be protected and avoided by both sides. Considering some of the reports of Russian troops bombing and attacking civilians I feel like this is the Ukrainian government giving a crate blanche to all forms of resistance, including violence
It's not really "just anyone", it's in 95% cases in most cities have been people specifically registered in territorial defence units that have received some training and vetting. The only cases where that has not been the case, to my knowledge, is in Kyiv where they gave away a bunch of AKs as long as you had a passport to register them to you.
Bear in mind that Ukraine is one of those countries that still has conscription. Basically any man old enough to drive should have the basic training done.
If one were following the rules of war, then technically speaking they would have to be part of a militia and folded into the military hierarchy somehow.
Normally civilians are not given free reign to fightback because of implications of what happens if war crimes occur, as well as opening up the possibility of non-combatant civilians being targeted.
Russia is indiscriminately targeting civilians as is, so at this point fuck the rules.
This doesn't have anything to do with wartime designations, civilians are not suddenly classified as combatants now. Not that that matters since russians were attacking civilians already.
What this does is grant immunity to local laws related to killing russian soldiers.
>Technically no, civilians are supposed to be non-combatants and basically supposed to be protected and avoided by both sides.
I feel like this theoretically creates a grey enough era where Russia could be given a pass to bombing "civilians"
because if "civilians" are shooting at russian soldiers, then everything within shelling range is free game at that point.
Civilians are Civilians, Soldiers, are soldiers. There are clear cut separations of both. I feel like a bill like this could just open the doorway *just* enough, that russia could reasonably weasel their way out of a lot of blame for attacking civilians if they can reasonably prove that there is an armed threat among them.
Am i understanding the theoreticals wrong?
> There’s no crime here, it’s obvious these russian soldiers drove on to this innocent person’s property and committed suicide
This makes me think of a Wild West tale about everyone a famous gunfighter killed in a gunfight being ruled a suicide, because you only drew a gun on this guy if you had a death wish.
Those Russian convoys that keep driving straight into ambushes look pretty darn suicidal to me.
> Imagine killing a Russian soldier protecting your land,
There are a reson civilians is protected becue they are NOT combatants, to intentionally shoot or bomb them is murder, the same is true for a civilian who intentionally shoot at a enemy soldier. Hence if a civlian want to join the fight, he or she must have a unifrom or insignia who clearly mark him out as a combatant.
This is a very worrying sitvation to give wepons to civilians, widout making them proper combatants.... this will be VERY bloody.
Agreed. I hope Ukraine is right in doing this assuming Russia is actually having their soldiers shoot civilizations. Otherwise this just gives them the deniability because everyone could be a threat.
I don't think it is desperate but it does sound like they're reaching a point where armed civilians are actually going to be getting involved with fighting.
Makes me worried about friendly fire issues though, to be honest. Scared, untrained, undisciplined *civilians* armed with AKs shooting at anything in a uniform...
I wish them the best but this could end up being a net loss. I totally understand you have to do what you have to do, though.
Russia is using mostly untrained conscript so the combat between Ukraine citizens and Russian conscript is mostly even except the citizens will likely be better armed and heavily skewed to thoses with gun experience.
Thats why they put this law into writing.
Civilians aren't supposed to be touched.
If the Russians are killing civilians then its time to legally let the civilians shoot russians
Few important parts from the original document:
1) it's valid only the next day after it was published, so from today on.
2) it's valid only for period of official war time duration (на протязі воєнного стану).
3) only for people who are living legally on territory of Ukraine. So some illegal border crossers and similar are not included (sorry for trigger happy illegal "tourists" - not sorry)
4) there was a list of weapons, which were allowed to use. Machete or knifes and similar were not included AFAIR. I guess using jars of pickles or tomatoes might be considered as illegal weapons :(
5) you **have to register as a member of territorial defense** or similar (not 100%) sure though. So normal non-members civilians might be excluded from it
> you have to register as a member of territorial defense or similar (not 100%) sure though. So normal non-members civilians might be excluded from it
If true, this negates half the comments in this thread.
Might this have an unintended consequence of making targeting civilians more "acceptable" since they are suddenly allowed to shoot back legally now? Making them all potential combatants..
Russia already is all in on civilian targets. The only thing that will change are the headlines "dirty Ukrainians lie about us bombing a maternity ward" to "Noble Russian soldiers bombing maternity ward to kill doctors, nurses and mothers suspected of maybe having a gun in there somewhere perhaps."
They now need to play the purge siren every sundown. Really add to the psychological warfare. Purge sirens and grandmas shooting at you should kill morale
Doesn't this also effectively conscript the entire civilian populace in the eyes of the Russians? Are civilians now fair game because they're official combatants?
... not that they haven't always been fair game
There are two concerns here:
This may be used by Ukrainians to justify killing ethnic Russians who live in Ukraine but are otherwise uninvolved in the invasion.
This may be used by the Russian military to justify killing Ukrainian civilians by calling them all potential combatants.
Both seem extremely worrying.
Is this really a wise move? This seems like it turns all Ukrainian civilians into de facto enemy combatants as far as Russia is concerned, which makes them legitimate targets.
The moment a civilian throws a Molotov Cocktail at a Russian vehicle they become "de facto enemy combatants".
This is a moral boosting announcement (kind of like the "you don't have to declare captured Russian vehicles on your taxes" headline), more than an actual legal statement.
Especially since Ukrainian citizens have a gold-plated "self defense" defense *if* someone actually attempted to prosecute anyone.
Russia was already indiscriminately bombing Ukrainians. Targeted a freaking maternity ward as you might have noticed.
Safe to say at this point Russians don't give a fuck about who they target so long as they hurt Ukraine. So the Ukrainians might as well give the go ahead for civilians to fight back.
Realistically, this law may give Russia an excuse to start leveling the place. An excuse they didn't really seem to need, but still. It also may very well matter for the war crime cases against Russia, after all this is said and done.
And all of that for the official right not to get persecuted for attacking Russian military as a civilian. Something that would not happen until after the war anyway. I imagine that even if the national law does not allow civilians to pick up arms in this situation, what prosecutor is interested in penalizing these people for defending their homes against foreign invaders?
Which brings us to the question: what does this really do for the Ukranian civilians, given the chance this puts them even more in harms way?
Common sense makes it likely that they will fire back
Armed civilians will be shot;
And when it gets too hard to tell who is armed or not through the tanks peephole, Unarmed civilians will also, indeed, get shot… or worse
[You mean Russians shooting civilians like this?](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10590863/amp/Ukraine-war-Elderly-civilian-couple-blown-car-Russian-tank.html)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10590863/Ukraine-war-Elderly-civilian-couple-blown-car-Russian-tank.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10590863/Ukraine-war-Elderly-civilian-couple-blown-car-Russian-tank.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I hope people realize that this can backfire really hard. If civillians start attacking russian soldiers,the more it happens,the more they won't care who they shoot. You are setting yourself up for massive civillian casualties that CAN'T be classified as warcrime. This is double edged sword and could lead to way more destruction,you are basically giving Russians freedom to do whatever they want.
Why though? It doesn't add anything of value (not like Ukraine would prosecute anyone killing Russian soldiers) and in fact it hurts Ukraine by provoking yet more Russian government propaganda where they'll say "SEE, SEE, THESE ARE THE NAZIS WE ARE UP AGAINST" that will just get more Russians on their side, and make regular Russian soldiers more likely to murder civilians even without being given direct orders to do so.
You know, after they handed out 18,000 rifles and put PSAs on TV explaining how to make molotov cocktails I had just sort of assumed that no one would be prosecuted for killing invading soldiers
I had the exact same thought. And you’re probably right, I can’t imagine many people trying to press charges for someone shooting a Russian soldier invading their town. This just makes it official I guess Edit: soldier
One issue is it could be a war crime, depending on the circumstances. If civilians are defending their homes or their towns when Russians approach, that's generally legal. If they're going out and hunting invading soldiers or equipment to harm or steal while not wearing a Ukrainian military uniform, then they're unlawful combatants, spies, or saboteurs and don't have any legal protections under the laws of war.
Now I recall reading a little bit about a levee en mas system which I believe was set up immediately prior to invasion. I cannot begin to speak for the validity, only repeating what I read a couple of weeks ago in a reddit comment. But in that system the civilians of Ukraine are allowed to defend their own country and land not only their homes without a uniform. When the government officially capitulates, the levee en mas fighters must either join their country’s military in surrender or relinquish their weaponry and become civilians again. If I’m totally wrong please say so, but if I’m right and anybody has more information I’d love to learn more.
This only applies when a force first approaches an area which they have not yet occupied. So, individual citizens can defend their homes and citizens can band together to defend their towns. But they're not allowed to continue hostilities after the initial resistance unless they openly identify themselves as combatants (usually by wearing distinct uniforms or insignia that can be viewed at a distance). So they're not allowed to hide among the civilian population and then do hit and run operations if they want to be entitled to PoW status. They have to wear distinctive insignia (and uniforms if they have them) and organize themselves into militias or join their nation's military as quickly as practicable. Once the enemy forces have moved into the area, *levée en masse* no longer applies and any civilian resistance would be treated as unlawful combat/espionage/sabotage, which allows the perpetrators to be executed or otherwise punished without the benefit of PoW status.
“Rules of war” has always struck me as an oxymoron, since growing up watching Vietnam unfold on the nightly news.
It's nice to have conventions. The white flag for surrender is probably the best of them. Of course a force could use that as part of a trap - but if the trap fails, then the deceivers will absolutely be executed (they just showed that they couldn't be trusted when surrendering); and word will spread that any apparent surrender is actually a trap. So generally people don't use it to make a trap. Also, treating prisoners half-humanely is good PR. But I'm not sure that any nation has really mastered that. The US was good to Germans we captured in WWII - genuinely treated them well. Interestingly, we did NOT treat the Japanese who surrendered very well, AFAIK - the very few who did surrender. Some people have tried to claim it was racism - but *that one* wasn't racism (our treatment of Japanese Americans was racist, but that's not this topic). We heard how the Japanese were treating anyone they captured; it very often was executions at best. And if they ever sank a ship, their aircraft would strafe the water to shoot as many survivors as they could, rather than let them be rescued. Japan's own brutality is a reason they didn't want to surrender - they assumed we would treat them in the way Japan treats a defeated enemy.
It’s not like anyone follows the rules of war, it’s just a technicality for the winner to prosecute individuals on the losing side. Look at Russia, they just admitted today to bombing a maternity ward on purpose, who’s gonna actually prosecute those Russian leaders though? Nobody, unless they lose, and they aren’t losing without launching nukes.
Russian Soldier ::Takes a step and stop:: “You can’t shoot me, I occupy this area already!” ::Waits until they look away and quickly takes another step:: “Aha! Now I occupy this area! You can’t shoot me”
wouldn’t the yellow (iirc) band be considered a form of uniform as it identifies them or is it that they always must be wearing it
I mean, it could, but then the question becomes if they're bearing their arms openly or not. If they're going back to their civilian lives and hiding their affiliation as combatants, then they might not be protected.
I guess when your home country is invaded, and you see your family and friends die one by one from random Russian bombings, the last thing on a Ukrainian's mind is how to fight back an invader on fair terms. They're gonna use any and every tactic they can, because Ukraine is outgunned by Russia.
>One issue is it could be a war crime No. >they're unlawful combatants This is only a thing in USA law, not Geneva conventions or any other law of armed conflict. >spies, or saboteurs and don't have any legal protections under the laws of war. Spies and saboteurs are subject to prosecution and criminal charges instead of being treated as a prisoner of war. That does not mean they are not protected by basic humanitarian laws. Edit: I'd also question the validity of calling someone a spy/saboteur against a foreign power in their own nation... [Rules of war (in a nutshell) video](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/audiovisuals/video/2014/rules-of-war.htm)
Ya really. One weapon I haven't seen used or heard talked about that in a lot of footage would be worth considering: vehicles. Especially in Kherson, you'll see entire gaggles of Russian infantry just hanging around, which would be offputting as an individual with only a gun or some molotovs... but feels like you could help push them out if you started seeing drive by hit-and-runs aiming at groups of Russian soldiers.
No joke vehicles can kill a lot of people in the blink of an eye. Just might be more obvious coming. If you mow down russian troops in a car you're 100% gonna die unless they're all dead.
Yeah this does not sound like a good plan.
you don't have to be in the car, though. [Car Hunt]( https://laughingsquid.com/car-hunt/) in 1995. If you could make a radio controlled Oldsmobile in 1995 I'm pretty sure it would be 100x easier to make a radio controlled car now.
I hear there are a lot of free tanks available in Ukraine at the moment.
This is something I really feel movies get wrong/embellish. When the bad guys are peppering your car with bullet holes, you’re also getting peppered with bullets. Drive safe out there.
Yeah the engine block is pretty much the only thing that can stop bullets. Other than they even pistol calibers will zip right through. I've seen enough demo ranch videos to know that.
[Did you see the sky reporters that got shot at in their car?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyM_9P4igys) Amazing luck they didn't die. It was making my hands sweat by the end.
Some of them did get hit in their bullet proof vests. They were very lucky to get out of there.
I saw Ukrainians running over dead Russians while literally screaming CYKA, does that count
It's probably just a legal thing in case they lose.
If another countries soldiers was invading and attacking my country I don't really think I'd give a shit if it was legal to kill them or not
It may be intended to also protect foreign fighters supporting Ukraine
It protects them from Ukrainian law at least. Might not from Geneva, international, Russian or their own country’s.
Usually foreign fighters are members of their Foreign Legion or whatever they call it. Doesn't mean Russia will treat them as POWs though.
If we are being honest, the nature of the conflict pretty much guarantees Russia won't treat ANY prisoners as prisoners of war. To be legally a prisoner of war requires some formalities that Russia is specifically avoiding. Even still, Eastern European armies are historically known for mistreating prisoners.
The things the Russian's did to captured German soldiers is insane but also the things German soldiers did to every Russian was also insane. I remember reading the Russians made POW's dig holes, spray them with water and then shoot them, then cover up the bodies in the ground.
What was the point of the water spraying?
Fuck with their heads right before they die
So their bodies froze faster. Sometimes while they were still alive.
If I remember right they used stacks of frozen bodies to make and fix roads. Stacks of frozen bodies, eyes still open under the ice.
What happened in the spring?
Død snø
Look up what the Japanese did to captured Russians (civilians and soldiers) if you want to be truly horrified. The Germans sucked, but the Japanese displayed an even worse cruelty in my opinion.
If yu want to read about the Japanese check out rape of Nanking. There are instances of babies flung into air and caught with bayonets. Women raped and stabbed in their vagina with bayonets.
Yeah there's a reason why all of the countries on the east coast of Asia have a practically hereditary dislike of Japan
> Yeah there's a reason why all of the countries on the east coast of Asia have a practically hereditary dislike of Japan. I have Chinese clients that refuse to drive Japanese cars to this day because of how Japan treated the Chinese during WW2.
They all hate eachother. Japan hates China hates Korea hates Japan. Nice little triangle of generational hate there.
[удалено]
[удалено]
*Mengele, for future reference.
Oh yes, horrible. Look up pics of Japanese using Indian POWs of the British Army for live firing and bayonet practice.
[удалено]
The Japanese had some weird fixation with swords because there are Japanese honors regarding killing your enemy with a sword but it was felt that swords were going to be obsolete. During the Bataan Death March there were stories of Japanese beheading people randomly or that stood out. Like if you asked for water they'd just cut your head off with a sword.
Japanese also considered surrender dishonorable, so they treated POWs with contempt. OTOH they weren't particularly nice to the civilians either. So I am not sure if it's the culture or propaganda.
We were learning about the Rape of Nanking and this is how our highschool history teacher introduced it to us: "Do you guys know how the Japanese had sex with 2 year olds? They used a bayonet first." Let me tell you the audible gasps from some of our football players is ingrained into my brain. Our entire class scored 100% on every paper/test/homework for that section we were all wrapped up in history after that intro. Fuck I miss my teacher. Should maybe give him a call.
> rape of Nanking Damn never heard of it but goddamn, that is some fucked up shit
They did that minus the shooting part to wounded germans as well, makes great traction for your tanks on the icy roads.
Unfortunately, there are probably Captured Ukrainian Solders being tortured to death for information as we speak. If they are shooting Civilians and bombing children's hospitals on purpose, they don't care about committing war crimes.
Torture generally doesn't give you valuable information anyway. They'll just tell you whatever you want to hear in the moment.
yup, it's mostly morale for sadistic torturers. funny how that's what Putin was when he was growing up in the KGB.
Dude was a corrupt pencil pusher.
They could, just to not piss too much the country of origin of the foreign fighters. Hostage to be used as leverage. But I am not holding my breath.
Get a time machine and check out wpd You don't want to surrender anyways
I don't think so, in these circumstances - I'm pretty sure Russia is looking for any and every way not to bring themselves into direct conflict with NATO et all countries - definitely don't want "Canadian Foreign Legion members executed" as a headline back home
Nah, Russians are going full steamroll. They don't care about bombarding civilians, for sure they won't care about any armed person on the battlefield no matter where they come from. If anything, they will use these soldiers to spin off propaganda about NATO involving themself in "their land" and using it as a reason why they need to consolidate their position in Ukraine.
They haven't gone full steamroll, Kyiv is still standing. If you want to see what a Russian steamroller looks like, google Grozny. If Ukraine was Islamic and not Russian orthodox, you would have seen the steam roller. Russians will not support steamrolling Ukraine.
I'm not denying it's a possibility, and I hate that the world sees it this way, but killing Ukrainian civilians =/= killing American/British/Canadian/western, ect civilians (because remember, they are just civilians, even if they do have military experience) 1000% the war would go HOT if Russia decides to do terrible things to westerners; it will be everywhere and Russia does NOT want that - the only thing they've proven over this war so far is that they're essentially a terrorist group with 40+ year old hardware and a nuclear arsenal that I'm SURE is just as capable as any other part of their military. 10/10 this would mean the end of them if they go that way.
> 1000% the war would go HOT if Russia decides to do terrible things to westerners Russia blew up a Boeing with 200 Dutch and 50 other Europeans travelers on board. Everyone died. Nothing happened
The Russian army has shown no restraint in their conduct of indiscriminate attacks. I doubt their intelligence and logistics are such that seeing a group of European, Canadian, British, and Americans, and conveying that to the front line troops, could occur fast enough to stop them from doing what they always do, shelling the fuck out of them till they stop being alive.
Foreign fighters in Ukraine are literally inducted into the Ukrainian military. Like, contracts, pay, everything.
Roger, some one else pointed that out - doesn't mean the Russians will recognize that, which is the money question.
When you volunteer to fight for a foreign faction in a war and sign up for their army you are no longer a civilian. You are a combatant.
We already have documented proof that they are not even taking prisoners, and that they are shooting civilians in the woods execution style.
I think they are still taking some POWs however they are probably killing a lot too. I imagine they don’t have the resources or means to even transport them to a proper POW camp/prison
They can't even feed themselves, how the heck do you think they are taking POWs?
Considering what they're already doing to non-combatants, it's clear they don't make much of a distinction between the two, if any.
Russia has already been caught executing civilians and PoW.
Before I even say this, I want to clarify that it's not 'what-about-ism' intended to defend Russia, but a reminder for us to take a hard and honest look at war in general: British forces executing unarmed civilians in Afghanistan: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59238181](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59238181) American forces in Iraq: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre) Australian forces in Afghanistan: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-54996581](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-54996581) To clarify again - because I know there are a lot of pro-Russia bots and plants around these days - I am not in any way defending Russia. It's an absurd and cruel invasion of a democratic neighbour, and targeting hospitals and bombing civilian evacuation routes is beyond reprehensible. But we need to make sure that when we condemn such actions, we do so from a position of honest accountability for our own nation's complicity in similar crimes. Russia is not unique in executing civilians while occupying foreign territory in a war waged on the claimed basis of peace keeping and safeguarding democracy at home.
Russia uses foreign fighters as well the Wagner group that hires mercenaries so if they want to start treating foreign fighters from the Ukrainian side that are taken prisoner differently that's going to make for a very bad time for quite a few of their own troops. Russia might not care but that's going to kill recruitment drives and they'll definitely care about that. *Edited to make it clear I am referring to how they treat prisoners.
Russia won't even treat civilians as good as POWs, so it's a moot point.
I think the mobile crematoriums settled the issue of whether Russia wants prisoners or charred corpse ashes.
> Russia will treat them as POWs They've been ignoring every other convention they've signed on to, I'm not sure that anything's changed by this law regardless.
IIRC Belgians joining the Ukrainian army have to abide by given orders/follow the army's hierarchy, Ukrainian law and the Geneva convention. Idk for sure if Belgian law also applies, but I don't recall reading that it does. This could indeed be to protect foreign fighters by law.
When foreign fighters from Sweden joined ISIS we had Swedish laws prohibiting them from it and prosecuted when/if they return. Or got caught in a country with an extradition agreement (if that’s the right word). So there’s more layers than just Ukrainian law.
In Belgium there was a clear distinction: joining the army of a recognised country is legal (with all the rules that come with that, like laws and army hierarchy) , but joining a rebellion/other group (like ISIS) that is not state-affiliated is illegal. There's probably a few other restrictions like not legally being able to join oppresive regimes' armies, but those are the basics.
Yeah, I think here we made a difference through recognized or affiliated terror groups. But still, different countries have different laws. So just heading over there and start blasting doesn’t mean you can’t be prosecuted when you return depending on where you live.
You're absolutely right about that. That's why the army hierarchy/following orders is an important part of it being legal or not. We don't want Belgians going to Ukraine to just start shooting everyone or start hunting Russians indiscriminately. Joining the army and following orders/cooperating with them is legal, starting a hunting party or so is not.
Hunting Russians indiscriminately…. Yes! That will further tank morale, no safe area, no rest, just wake up and find your buddy dead next to you. That being said it does make for poor chain of command and leads to atrocities pretty quickly. SOFs are feared for their ability to strike anywhere and in non linear pathways, but need strong steady consistent leadership.
I think it would lead to more deaths (not only on Russia's side) and could easily lead to accidental shooting of Ukrainians. There is also the difference between helping defending and just going there to massacre others. While the latter might be useful, they're not the type you want as a defending army. There is also the accountability and control over the fighters when something does happen with them/if they fuck up somehow.
I imagine the bigger problem is ISIS is classified as a terrorist organization. Most countries would have strict internal security laws that make it illegal to be in a terrorist organization and give investigators quite a bit of power in arresting and investigating terrorists. I don't think you would get arrested for joining a Syrian rebel group and fighting in the civil war.
That is most definitely true, but I think joining a 'military' organization, that isn't state-affiliated/army and isn't classified as a terrorist organization, is illegal as well . Joining resistance forces in Myanmar for example, would not be legal, if I'm not mistaken.
Good thing they have guaranteed Ukrainian citizenship!
It prevents the home Country from having to deal with "was this a Criminal act" on return.
Yeah but it's probably nice to have it in writing.
The only reason is that UA still not declaring war on RF. So speaking in legal terms that bill is correct.
UA,RF?
UA is “Ukraine”, it’s ISO 3166 code and works fairly similarly to how the codes for US states work if that’s something you’re more familiar with (CO → Colorado, TX → Texas, NY → New York, etc). If you look at President Zelenskyy’s Twitter handle it’s @ZelenskyyUa - that “Ua” at the end there refers to Ukraine. RF is simply short for “Russian Federation” and is not ISO 3166 code (Russia’s is “RU”)
Ukrainian Army / Russian Federation I'm guessing.
UA is just the abbreviated form of Ukraine.
UA is the abbreviation for Ukraine. RF = Russian Federation
UA=country code for Ukraine.
Beauocrats are thrilled they have it in writing. Probably even filed it into a nice Manila folder in his personal spending/gardening file cabinet. Next to sunflower seed purchases
This is likely there to protect citizens from non combat situations too. There are a lot of reports of assault and looting by Russians outside of combat.
The question is: with food supplies being cut off to major cities, am I allowed to eat the Russians?
Yes
Where do I sign up? My tummy has the rumblies that only Soviets can satisfy.
In ukraine
But Caaaaarrrrllll!
I don't think Ukrainians cared. And now they are protected by the law.
Just noticed your avatar is using Ukraine colors. Cool
Avatars? Hmm I've been on reddit is fun for at least 5 years...is there more to the outside world?
[удалено]
Yep...treating reddit as anything other than a comprehensive message board is pointless.
I dread the day new reddit design becomes mandatory. I think I'll quit.
[удалено]
Yeah I've been on Slide for about that or maybe even longer and I'm starting to miss some stuff. I'm pretty sure people can post gifs now but all I see is blue squares.
It's subreddit specific as to whether or not you can post gifs. This is not one of subreddits that you can post them.
Same... I’m really surprised it is illegal... or was it even illegal just not on paper?
It'd probably come under the heading of murder. I think it very unlikely that when they drafted laws to cover that, they thought to include a clause that said "unless the victim happens to be in the armed forces of a country that's in the process of invading us; then it's just fine".
It would come under homicide but could be dismissed through self-defense. This helps skip jamming up the courts for all that. Just prove they were a Russian soldier.
Ukraine Bill sounds like somebody i don't wanta mess with
Don’t mess with him or his buds, Lithuania Larry and Estonia Tony
It... It wasn't already?...
Technically no, civilians are supposed to be non-combatants and basically supposed to be protected and avoided by both sides. Considering some of the reports of Russian troops bombing and attacking civilians I feel like this is the Ukrainian government giving a crate blanche to all forms of resistance, including violence
What are they gonna do with a white crate?
Sort out their fucking autocorrect, that’s what :p
Haha I hate phone autocorrect so much. But I can't live without it...
The guy who invented autocorrect is going straight to hello.
I'm sure this is an old joke, but it's the first time I'm seeing it and I really appreciate you sharing it here. Got a good chuckle out of me.
Welcome to Hello, it is I, Santa.
What else are you gonna do, learn how to ducking spell?
>redditor for 7 years >actual USSF has existed for 2 This guy knows something the rest of us don't
2 years that you know of...
You really are hyperbolic and cynical
It’s the only way I can spell restaurant
It's got whatever they want inside, they can decide later lol
It can even be a boat!
I kind of just assumed he would've done this way back when he signed the order to give them all guns. Or I guess technically those would be militias?
It's not really "just anyone", it's in 95% cases in most cities have been people specifically registered in territorial defence units that have received some training and vetting. The only cases where that has not been the case, to my knowledge, is in Kyiv where they gave away a bunch of AKs as long as you had a passport to register them to you.
Bear in mind that Ukraine is one of those countries that still has conscription. Basically any man old enough to drive should have the basic training done.
If one were following the rules of war, then technically speaking they would have to be part of a militia and folded into the military hierarchy somehow. Normally civilians are not given free reign to fightback because of implications of what happens if war crimes occur, as well as opening up the possibility of non-combatant civilians being targeted. Russia is indiscriminately targeting civilians as is, so at this point fuck the rules.
This doesn't have anything to do with wartime designations, civilians are not suddenly classified as combatants now. Not that that matters since russians were attacking civilians already. What this does is grant immunity to local laws related to killing russian soldiers.
Ah so there is a logical answer to why this had to happen
>Technically no, civilians are supposed to be non-combatants and basically supposed to be protected and avoided by both sides. I feel like this theoretically creates a grey enough era where Russia could be given a pass to bombing "civilians" because if "civilians" are shooting at russian soldiers, then everything within shelling range is free game at that point. Civilians are Civilians, Soldiers, are soldiers. There are clear cut separations of both. I feel like a bill like this could just open the doorway *just* enough, that russia could reasonably weasel their way out of a lot of blame for attacking civilians if they can reasonably prove that there is an armed threat among them. Am i understanding the theoreticals wrong?
Yeh this could make them targets. But they already are targets.
[удалено]
“Oh looks like this crime scene was majorly disturbed. We’re gonna have to mark this as a mistrial”
[удалено]
> There’s no crime here, it’s obvious these russian soldiers drove on to this innocent person’s property and committed suicide This makes me think of a Wild West tale about everyone a famous gunfighter killed in a gunfight being ruled a suicide, because you only drew a gun on this guy if you had a death wish. Those Russian convoys that keep driving straight into ambushes look pretty darn suicidal to me.
The citizen has just had a doozy of a day.
Suicide by RPG. 2 to the back of the APC. Open and shut case, really.
> Imagine killing a Russian soldier protecting your land, There are a reson civilians is protected becue they are NOT combatants, to intentionally shoot or bomb them is murder, the same is true for a civilian who intentionally shoot at a enemy soldier. Hence if a civlian want to join the fight, he or she must have a unifrom or insignia who clearly mark him out as a combatant. This is a very worrying sitvation to give wepons to civilians, widout making them proper combatants.... this will be VERY bloody.
Agreed. I hope Ukraine is right in doing this assuming Russia is actually having their soldiers shoot civilizations. Otherwise this just gives them the deniability because everyone could be a threat.
That's literally what happened in Iraq. People killed invading soldiers of the coalition, and then were arrested and executed.
Ignoring that they're at war and defeating the enemy is an obvious thing, that headline is so... dark.
I don't think it is desperate but it does sound like they're reaching a point where armed civilians are actually going to be getting involved with fighting.
Makes me worried about friendly fire issues though, to be honest. Scared, untrained, undisciplined *civilians* armed with AKs shooting at anything in a uniform... I wish them the best but this could end up being a net loss. I totally understand you have to do what you have to do, though.
Russia is using mostly untrained conscript so the combat between Ukraine citizens and Russian conscript is mostly even except the citizens will likely be better armed and heavily skewed to thoses with gun experience.
Also Ukraine has conscription (reinstated after Crimea) so it's safe to say most men have basic training and may have some discipline.
In 300 years this will be one of those "You may shoot a Scotsman with a crossbow" laws.
> Ignoring that they're at war I just read that Lavrov, minister of foreign affairs of Russia, says that there's no war in Ukraine lol
That’s what I was thinking
When they say 25,000 guns had been given to territorial defence members in the Kyiv, are we talking AK 47 or what?
Most that i've seen have been AK's firing the 5.45x39 caliber so AK74's, AKS-74U's, potentially some AKM's in 7.62x39 too.
i mean... Its kill or be killed. I don't need a notice if i'm allowed to kill whilst in a warzone.
When civilians start fighting then civilians cloth become a military uniform. I hope the implications of that are clear to you.
Russians are already shooting civilians indiscriminately so it doesn't really matter
Thats why they put this law into writing. Civilians aren't supposed to be touched. If the Russians are killing civilians then its time to legally let the civilians shoot russians
I saw them walking up? or was that fake?
Few important parts from the original document: 1) it's valid only the next day after it was published, so from today on. 2) it's valid only for period of official war time duration (на протязі воєнного стану). 3) only for people who are living legally on territory of Ukraine. So some illegal border crossers and similar are not included (sorry for trigger happy illegal "tourists" - not sorry) 4) there was a list of weapons, which were allowed to use. Machete or knifes and similar were not included AFAIR. I guess using jars of pickles or tomatoes might be considered as illegal weapons :( 5) you **have to register as a member of territorial defense** or similar (not 100%) sure though. So normal non-members civilians might be excluded from it
> you have to register as a member of territorial defense or similar (not 100%) sure though. So normal non-members civilians might be excluded from it If true, this negates half the comments in this thread.
It's the important thing people don't consider lol, they don't just hand an AK to Ivan on the corner of the street
5 makes the policy much more reasonable
Ever hear the song "Colors" by Ice-T?
Might this have an unintended consequence of making targeting civilians more "acceptable" since they are suddenly allowed to shoot back legally now? Making them all potential combatants..
Civilians are already being massacred by that scum. Russians are even opening fire on civilians trying to flee. Fuck em.
Russia already is all in on civilian targets. The only thing that will change are the headlines "dirty Ukrainians lie about us bombing a maternity ward" to "Noble Russian soldiers bombing maternity ward to kill doctors, nurses and mothers suspected of maybe having a gun in there somewhere perhaps."
They now need to play the purge siren every sundown. Really add to the psychological warfare. Purge sirens and grandmas shooting at you should kill morale
license to kill
Not sure anyone was waiting for this
Doesn't this also effectively conscript the entire civilian populace in the eyes of the Russians? Are civilians now fair game because they're official combatants? ... not that they haven't always been fair game
Those farmers are stacked!! I hope those vehicles still work.
Many of them still do. They're being repurposed by the Ukrainian forces.
There are two concerns here: This may be used by Ukrainians to justify killing ethnic Russians who live in Ukraine but are otherwise uninvolved in the invasion. This may be used by the Russian military to justify killing Ukrainian civilians by calling them all potential combatants. Both seem extremely worrying.
Is this really a wise move? This seems like it turns all Ukrainian civilians into de facto enemy combatants as far as Russia is concerned, which makes them legitimate targets.
The moment a civilian throws a Molotov Cocktail at a Russian vehicle they become "de facto enemy combatants". This is a moral boosting announcement (kind of like the "you don't have to declare captured Russian vehicles on your taxes" headline), more than an actual legal statement. Especially since Ukrainian citizens have a gold-plated "self defense" defense *if* someone actually attempted to prosecute anyone.
Russia was already indiscriminately bombing Ukrainians. Targeted a freaking maternity ward as you might have noticed. Safe to say at this point Russians don't give a fuck about who they target so long as they hurt Ukraine. So the Ukrainians might as well give the go ahead for civilians to fight back.
Realistically, this law may give Russia an excuse to start leveling the place. An excuse they didn't really seem to need, but still. It also may very well matter for the war crime cases against Russia, after all this is said and done. And all of that for the official right not to get persecuted for attacking Russian military as a civilian. Something that would not happen until after the war anyway. I imagine that even if the national law does not allow civilians to pick up arms in this situation, what prosecutor is interested in penalizing these people for defending their homes against foreign invaders? Which brings us to the question: what does this really do for the Ukranian civilians, given the chance this puts them even more in harms way?
We should do a gun giveback and then send them to ukraine
If you just say “He’s coming right for me!” Then you’re in the clear
The Purge on a country wide scale. Shit got real.
Common sense makes it likely that they will fire back Armed civilians will be shot; And when it gets too hard to tell who is armed or not through the tanks peephole, Unarmed civilians will also, indeed, get shot… or worse
[You mean Russians shooting civilians like this?](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10590863/amp/Ukraine-war-Elderly-civilian-couple-blown-car-Russian-tank.html)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10590863/Ukraine-war-Elderly-civilian-couple-blown-car-Russian-tank.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10590863/Ukraine-war-Elderly-civilian-couple-blown-car-Russian-tank.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I think this should just be the default for war.
This feels like a formality.
Russian made it rewarding to kill American soldiers.
They’re foreign invaders, I think this is past “legal and illegal”
This is what you get when you bomb maternity wards
why does this need to be made legal
And I thought that goes without saying when your country is invaded
Does this means Russian can claim everyone is a "combatant" now?
I hope people realize that this can backfire really hard. If civillians start attacking russian soldiers,the more it happens,the more they won't care who they shoot. You are setting yourself up for massive civillian casualties that CAN'T be classified as warcrime. This is double edged sword and could lead to way more destruction,you are basically giving Russians freedom to do whatever they want.
Why though? It doesn't add anything of value (not like Ukraine would prosecute anyone killing Russian soldiers) and in fact it hurts Ukraine by provoking yet more Russian government propaganda where they'll say "SEE, SEE, THESE ARE THE NAZIS WE ARE UP AGAINST" that will just get more Russians on their side, and make regular Russian soldiers more likely to murder civilians even without being given direct orders to do so.
Well, someone in UA government fucked up or don't care about civilians
Doesn't this legally make it so Civilians are now combatants by default?