I think after Poland ignored two Russian missiles, putin is thinking to use Wagner from Belarus to test and see what will happen if NATO country gets attacked. The normal answer would be that it would be war between Belarus and NATO. Which should be fairly quick. He is trying to tip the scale by saying Russia will be also back Belarus if attacked (BTW Hitler also stated WW2 claiming Poland attacked Nazi Germany), hoping that NATO won't back up Poland.
Nope, they didn’t. That’s what was the interesting thing about it.
NATO said they were Ukrainian. Ukrainians stayed adament they were russian. Ukraine didn’t even apologize to Poland for their (allgedly) missile killing two polish citizens.
That’s what made clear to me that it was indeed a russian missile, and NATO covered it up because they didn’t want to intervene. Which is also why they denied Ukrainain specialists access to the impact site for days.
I’m going off the deep end a bit here, but reports started off with two missiles. I thought it must have been a Ukrainian AA missile chasing a Russian cruise missile, with the Russian missile responsible for the deaths.
Then news suddenly shut up about the second missile, and started selling it as one Ukrainian missile.
I wouldn’t be surprised it was covered up so NATO didn’t get tested.
Thing is, every line Russia has drawn in the sand, accession to NATO, arms supplies to Ukraine etc have been proven to be empty words. Russia has backed off each time.
An attack on Poland from Belarus would quickly lead to an invasion from Poland. Securing Ukraine’s northern border would free up a lot of Ukrainian resources and would put NATO soldiers in another neighboring country to Russia.
It would be suicide for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Protection of journalists as civilians>Without providing a precise definition of them, humanitarian law distinguishes between two categories of journalists working in conflict zones: war correspondents accredited to the armed forces and “independent” journalists. According to the Dictionnaire de droit international public, the former category comprises all “specialized journalists who, with the authorization and under the protection of a belligerent’s armed forces, are present on the theatre of operations with a view to providing information on events related to the hostilities.” This definition reflects a practice followed during the Second World War and the Korean War, when war correspondents wore uniforms, enjoyed officers’ privileges and were placed under the authority of the head of the military unit in which they were incorporated. As for the term “journalist,” it designates, according to a 1975 draft UN convention, “…any correspondent, reporter, photographer, and their technical film, radio and television assistants who are ordinarily engaged in any of these activities as their principal occupation…”
Protection of war correspondents>War correspondents fall into the ill-defined category of “persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof.” Since they are not part of the armed forces, they enjoy civilian status and the protection derived from that status. Moreover, since they are, in a manner of speaking, associated with the war effort, they are entitled to prisoner-of-war status when they fall into the hands of the enemy, provided they have been duly authorized to accompany the armed forces. …
Protection of “embedded” journalists> Some ambiguity surrounds the status of “embedded” journalists … who accompany military troops in wartime. Embedment is not a new phenomenon; what is new is the sheer scale on which it has been practiced since the 2003 conflict in Iraq. The fact that journalists were assigned to American and British combat units and agreed to conditions of incorporation that obliged them to stick with these units, which ensured their protection, would liken them to the war correspondents mentioned in the Third Geneva Convention. And indeed, the guidelines issued by the British Ministry of Defence regarding the media grant the status of prisoners of war to embedded journalists who are taken prisoner. According to unofficial sources, however, it would seem that the French military authorities consider “embeds” as “unilaterals” who are only entitled to civilian status, as stipulated in Article 79 of Protocol I. A clarification on this point would seem essential. […] >The way in which “unilateral” journalists surround themselves with armed bodyguards can have dangerous consequences for all journalists. On 13 April 2003, the private security escort of a CNN crew on its way to Tikrit (northern Iraq) responded with an automatic weapon after the convoy came under fire at the entrance to the town. Some journalists are concerned by this new type of behaviour, which is contrary to all the rules of the profession: “Such a practice sets a dangerous precedent that could jeopardise all other journalists covering this war as well as others in the future,” said Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Robert Ménard. “There is a real risk that combatants will henceforth assume that all press vehicles are armed. Journalists can and must try to protect themselves by such methods as travelling in bulletproof vehicles and wearing bulletproof vests, but employing private security firms that do not hesitate to use their firearms just increases the confusion between reporters and combatants.”
Loss of protection>… The fact that a journalist engages in propaganda cannot be considered as direct participation (see below). It is only when a journalist takes a direct part in the hostilities that he loses his immunity and becomes a legitimate target. …
Obligation to take precautionary measures when launching attacks that could affect journalists and news media>The lawfulness of an attack depends not only on the nature of the target – which must be a military objective – but also on whether the required precautions have been taken, in particular as regards respect for the principle of proportionality and the obligation to give warning. In this regard, journalists and news media do not enjoy a particular status but benefit from the general protection against the effects of hostilities that Protocol I grants to civilians and civilian objects.
The principle of proportionality: a curb on immunity for journalists and media>[…] It was only in 1977 that [the principle of proportionality] was enshrined in a convention, namely in Articles 51 (5) (b) and 57 (2) (a) (iii) of Protocol I. This principle represents an attempt to reduce as much as possible the “collateral damage” caused by military operations. It provides the criterion that makes it possible to determine to what degree such damage can be justified under international humanitarian law: there must be a reasonable correlation between legitimate destruction and undesirable collateral effects. According to the principle of proportionality as set out in the above-mentioned articles, the accidental collateral effects of the attack, that is to say the incidental harmful effects on protected persons and property, must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. […]
ConclusionIt follows from the above that journalists and their equipment enjoy immunity, the former as civilians, the latter as a result of the general protection that international humanitarian law grants to civilian objects. However, this immunity is not absolute. Journalists are protected only as long as they do not take a direct part in the hostilities. News media, even when used for propaganda purposes, enjoy immunity from attacks, except when they are used for military purposes or to incite war crimes, genocide or acts of violence. However, even when an attack on news media may be justified for such reasons, every feasible precaution must be taken to avoid, or at least limit, loss of human life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. […]
Using cluster munitions against a group of civilians is disproportionate. The group included at least four journalists. One killed, three injured. The killing was unlawful (even if the journalist was a propagandist).
The correct response is not to be joyful that a Russian journalist has been killed (i.e. on the grounds that Russia has killed journalists). It is to uphold the universal principal that all killing of journalists in wartime is illegal. Otherwise, all that gesticulating about the ‘international rules based order’ and all that outrage at Russian war crimes is just empty posturing. And justifying war crimes because the enemy has committed them renders the Geneva convention meaningless.
United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1738 (2006), 23 December 2006, supports the above description, and (emphasis added):
Reaffirms its condemnation of all incitements to violence against civilians in situations of armed conflict, further reaffirms the need to bring to justice, in accordance with applicable international law, individuals who incite such violence, and indicates its willingness, when authorizing missions, to consider, where appropriate, steps in response to media broadcast inciting genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law[.]
Otherwise, all that gesticulating about the ‘international rules based order’ and all that outrage at Russian war crimes is just empty posturing. And justifying war crimes because the enemy has committed them renders the Geneva convention meaningless.
Yet it is meaningless in the context of nuclear countries. International law works more as a suggestion as you can’t forcibly enforce it against country that just says no to you.
But yes if confirmed by 3rd parties that Ukraine is responsible for the death of the journalist in the manner Russian Foreign Ministry described there should be consequences.
The amount of pearl clutching and disinformation Russia does when ukraine does literally anything, means we have to point out the bs when we see it against ukraine. But yes it would be better if people weren’t killed.
Why would he need to be on a battlefield and take useless risk for that? If all his job is to publish propaganda dictated by the Kremlin he can do it remote working from his living room.
You people never stop to think before commenting holy shit. Please go back to reddit.
If they are fabricating propaganda, why would they go to the front line? Why risk their life when, according to you, they’re just going to make everything up and say what they want anyway? Seems like the easier, safer, and more effective propaganda would simply not involve going to the front line and instead sitting in a news room, with some CGI if they’re feeling fancy, or using old footage if they’re not, and propagating that?
Moreover, just because you don’t like what a journalist is reporting, you can’t condone killing journalists.
Are you also saying it’d be ok to kill Russian medics, since after all, they’re just saving the lives of “Russian war criminals”? Should we suddenly open up the rules of war to allow killing medics on the side we’re fighting? The logic you’re using to defend the killing of journalists, when applied evenly, would say yes, we should allow killing of enemy medics.
Fortunately though, the Geneva Convention disagrees with your faulty logic and recognizes that non-combat roles including medics and journalists can not be targeted and indeed care should be taken to not inadvertently kill them.
So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don’t have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: “yeah but Russia does bad”.
Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.
No. You are building a massive strawman. I never even said a word about medics.
I guess you don’t understand how this works. I’m not building a strawman, as I’m literally describing the Geneva Convention’s justification for why your opinion is nonsensical to hold. I’m simply asking you to extend your “logic” to an identical situation that, in my opinion, is more enlightening as to why your argument is faulty. They are both non-combat roles, and the justification for protecting them in a war setting is identical.
You conveniently ignore everything Russia has done. Tell me, is Russia following Geneva conventions and Nuremberg principles?
I see that you don’t actually care to have an honest discussion. I haven’t mentioned anything Russia has done; I haven’t justified anything Russia has done. You think me pointing out that Ukraine has done something wrong, and that your defense of that is bad, is somehow equivalent to defending Russia.
It seems, unless you want to try to actually respond to the points I’ve raised, that you’re content in your disagreement with the Geneva Convention. As such, your faked concern about Russia’s supposed violation of the Geneva Convention is just that: faked.
Why would they condemn Russia when the article that started this discussion identifies a potential war crime committed by Ukraine and facilitated by NATO. There’s lots to criticise Russia for but this ain’t it.
Do you honestly think western reporting on the war is honest?
Of all the gigs that journalists do, reporting on “war” is the toughest. Not because of the dangers – though these must not to be underestimated. But when reporting “war”, journalists face off against the world’s most powerful vested interests and compete with society’s deepest cultural mythologies.
At its best, the Fourth Estate uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the incestuous relations in the Bush era of retired military officers, the US Defence Department and the “defence” industry.
In this incarnation, the Fourth Estate frightened even Napoleon. In his words:
“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.”
But the military’s “reality” is powerful, insidious and covert. It is seductive.
And I, for one, am not speaking for Russia when I criticise peoples’ happiness over the fact that a journalist has been killed in a war zone, just because they were Russian.
Russia claims all manner of outlandish drivel. If a journalist is killed by munitions you’ve been using for over a year yourself in a warzone you created I bring out my tiny violin.
By that same logic, Russia should shed no tears if those munitions kill journalists who can simply be rebranded propagandists. Hence the need not to judge whether a journalist is a propagandist and to avoid killing civilians holding press cards.
(Aside: Russia would be right in saying that the West locks up it’s journalists, especially those who highlight war crimes, and could point to one resident of Belmarsh in particular as incontrovertible evidence.)
Putin's been invading Ukraine since 2014. His 3-day special operation is going on for 514 days, had him running from a mutiny (I need a ride,not ammo!), has killed 241,330 Russians, has the Kerch bridge opening and closing like a fucking accordion, and is a global criminal. And all against a country with no nukes, no navy, barely an airforce, a tenth of Russia's defense budget, and 28 times smaller than Russia.
He's losing so badly, the whole world's laughing at him.
As I said earlier, Putin's standup act is very funny.
The 3-day myth was entirely a gaffe by the stupid general Milley. I’m not even going to address the other sci-fi numbers you blurted out as they are santa claus type of fantasy.
Oh no, I’m shaking in my boots. It sure would be a shame if the might of the Russian military invaded my country. They’re having trouble invading a small, neighboring nation by land, but I should totally fear them crossing an ocean to invade a nation that has an objectively superior military. Maybe if I defend him online, Putin will spare me. Notice me, Putin-san! uwu.
Don’t let certain far right pundits hear that. Especially not, if it’s involving a bunch of brown people. They’ll spin some “black queers steal our children and economy” bullshit.
This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire, and from now on bombs will be met by bombs.
It’s from a brave hero that fought for Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union in WW2 alongside Stepan Bandera, he’s remembered very fondly by them today! /s
I don’t know where you get the idea from that I’ve said the Nazis were socialists, and I don’t know where you get the idea that social democracies, a.k.a. liberal democracies, a.k.a. dictatorship of the bourgeoisie are socialists. Again, as far as I remember, history tells us that the bourgeois governments are the ones who turn fascist. History repeats itself: Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.
It’s unfortunate, but kinda inevitable. I’m sure there’s a graduate student somewhere whose thesis is on approximating the popularity and diversity of social platforms necessary before trolls swoop in.
Is it only me or does Putin look really bad in this photo? I mean he seems unhealthy and in addition to that he looks like he aged 10 years in just 2. Amazing speedrun.
Russian telegram channels reported without proof the death may be attributed to the way they conduct a documentation.
They group up with multiple other people, including soldiers, and stay as a group continuously. This is to control that nothing gets shown which should not be visible and have a tight control.
Apart from the lacking proof I am sceptical this would be required as this news agency is under full Kremlin control, but rational reasoning isn’t required for this authoritarian government.
It’s called ‘embedding’ journalists. It’s a real problem.
Edit: struggling to understand why this would be down voted. I’m not making any kind of value claim. It’s a matter of law that journalists who ride with soldiers are ‘embedded’ and the advice is not to do it because it’s dangerous and makes things more dangerous for other journalists.
There might be downvote bots etc. Never bother too much about the vote count on pages like these. Some communities in total, but at least certain discussions can quickly circle jerk. I’m reading also downvoted comments, because it could be a valuable perspective, even if it went against the flow.
Imagine breaking a treaty, invading a country, starting a war, using cluster bombs and then getting angry at the other guy for defending his country with cluster bombs.
reuters.com
Active