If true, this is a war crime by Ukraine.
On the other hand, I find any Russia reports extremely suspicious. While this is completely not out of the question, I would be skeptical that Ukraine would be engaging in sabotage of this sort which is both extremely damaging to PR and of only marginal use.
If it was “Ukraine had engaged in a policy of committing war crimes to regain Crimea” or “Individual Ukrainian troops or units were found committing war crimes”, it’d be more believable, but “Ukraine is committing war crimes just to harass Russian troops” seems like something that would need additional verification before I’d lend it any credence.
Which law/s do you believe this breaks?
I’m curious as to @[email protected]’s thoughts on this as Ukraine does appear to be a signatory to this treaty
The part of the article we would be most concerned with would probably be:
(d) medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;
This, in my understanding is generally considered to be actual hospitals and field hospitals;
Transport: ambulance, Helicopters and planes;
Medical equipment: critical equipment and tools;
Medical supplies: Supply drops or small deliveries en route to a military unit.
Ultimately, I’m not a lawyer, I just teach some material. If there was an argument as to whether or not it breaches the protocol that would be up to an international criminal court, maybe UN scrutiny? I start to lose the ball around here.
Thank you for the insight, I’m still unsure if this is a war crime but it likely warrants scrutiny from the relevant authorities.
I think people often chuck the declaration of war crime around a bit too quickly and without a proper understanding.
I’m glad I could be of a little help. Nations have been trying to clearly define these things for centuries.
I think your final statement is why I’m here. A lot of internet discourse around war immediately resorts to calling everything a war crime. That’s an incredibly precise label and we can’t always be certain. What I know for sure is that war is hell and undue suffering is wrong.
When you think about it, it’s a very suspiciously crap strategy.
I mean, you need to successfully fly a drone carrying a booby trapped med kit in into enemy territory, drop the kit somewhere high traffic, then just hope some Russian soldier notices it and opens it. That’s a lot of effort with a lot of things that can go wrong just to commit a war crime against one Russian soldier. Just loading up a drone with a bomb or a landmine seems like it’d be a more successful of a strategy, a hell of a lot less work and it’s not a war crime.
Then leave Ukraine…
Putin should bring this totally not made up case to the Hague personally
Removed by mod
And invading a soverign country is ok??
no of course not
(, but MEDICAL AID being used as booby traps is a fricking WARCRIME!)Hi, this is part of my area of expertise.
Neither nation is a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty of 1997 prohibiting the use of victim operated landmines and booby traps. Nor does either nation recognise the amendments to the Geneva convention made in 1996. Additionally, neither nation is a strict adherent or signatory of many of the Geneva conventions or treaty of the Hague which limit undue suffering. Making this specific act not a war crime.
The boobytrapping of a IFAK (Individual First Aid Kit) we see here adheres to laws outlined in all many of these treaties as they aren’t directly interfering with humanitarian aid.
Without citing the specific articles you may not:
- Target unarmed combatants or NGO workers
- Make false surrender (perfidy)
- Target hospitals, schools, religious sites or specified culturally significant sites; any force held within these areas are protected under the articles until hostile action is taken by them which forces the building or site to lose protected civilian status making it a valid military target.
- Create or alter devices and ammunition to cause undue harm. (Aim to maim rather than kill)
And the one we’re most concerned with in this conversation:
-Target Red Cross, Red Crescent or associated NGO humanitarian aid. Nor may one booby trap or target Humanitarian aid intended to reach soldiers and civilians.
Do you know what isn’t humanitarian aid? A soldier’s personal first aid kit. Why? Because anything owned or operated in war or for war does not have protected status and is a valid military target.
Soldiers have been booby trapping magazines, crates and supplies since the Boer War. It is not a war crime by any article or treaty I know of because tools of war are valid military targets.
Every single NATO soldier has these things drilled into their heads. Any competent soldier knows to never ever ever pick up anything the enemy may have left behind because they can and absolutely will leave things behind to fuck you up.
But I want you to go through the list of things you may not do and tell me how many of those the Russians have done. Because it’s all of them.
Oh I see, thanks for the exhaustive explanation. Then I shall retract my initial statement.
Thank you for the level headed response! I generally avoid having these conversations because people don’t often react well to me going: “well ackshually…” To you know… Human pain and suffering and the horrors of war.
I have good and bad days, but when it comes to lengthy explanations I try to be as level-headed as possible.
On the contrary kind sir. If that complete, clear and concise explanation exhausted you, it shows that you need to develop skills to overcome very poor and underdeveloped reading skills. However, I must agree with you. Although these militaries aren’t breaking any agreements, I too think it’s fucked up to use these types of tricks.
What about the “Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices” that somebody linked above? Not sure if it’s the same as the “1996 Geneva Amendments” you mention, but both Ukraine and Russia are listed as signatories, and the language does seem to me to cover this exact situation:
Article 7
Prohibitions on the Use of booby-traps and other devices- Without prejudice to the rules of international applicable in armed conflict relating
to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use booby-traps and other
devices which are any way attached to or associated with:
(a) internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals;
…
(d) medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;
It says “medical supplies”, without reference to humanitarian aid, and clearly stressing in “any way associated with”. A “red cross” is also a recognized emblem. I can appreciate how “humanitarian aid” can be narrowly defined as medical supplies under direct control and chain-of-custody of the Red Cross Organization and doesn’t apply to random medkits. But I can’t see how this language above would not apply.
Or is it the case that this would be a crime, committed during war, but not a war crime? How does that work? Does it have to be a violation of a specific Geneva Convention® version to count as a war crime, and not just any UN war-related convention?
I responded above I hope that provides enough. Though I didn’t speak to article a).
It may sound like a legal cop-out but some countries make a distinction between “The Red Cross” and “a red Cross”. It’s a weird one. Probably requires more scrutiny.
And as to your question of “Would this be a crime committed in war?” Or “A war crime?” That’s where lots of legalese comes in. It may be that one nation sees it as a crime where one doesn’t. Or the UN finds it a war crime but another organisation doesn’t or is a partial signatory or conscious observer and so on.
This is then something I understand is moved into the restitution phase post war where both nations sit at the table and dole out various legal requirements, PW transfers and the likes. Like a two sided lawsuit but instead of just money it’s money and human lives.
Which is nice.
- Without prejudice to the rules of international applicable in armed conflict relating
to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use booby-traps and other
devices which are any way attached to or associated with:
“It’s not a war crime unless it’s grown in the Geneva region of Switzerland, otherwise it’s just a sparkling atrocity.”
Everything russia does is a war crime. Hard to feel sympathy for a country that bombs schools and hospitals as intentional targets.
This isn’t a sympathy or war crime contest…
Neither is good: One would not be happening without the other.
So you’re saying war crimes are OK if you do them in wartime?
Nope. Are you missing the numerous war crimes that have been going on from the Russian forces this entire time? War crimes are always bad, but I find this somewhat understandable with how long this has been drawn out, the fact that Ukraine is being invaded, and how many war crimes been perpetrated on Ukrainian soil by the Russian forces. It’s not an excuse, but an explanation.
