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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
excuse me? An exhaustive explanation does not mean that it has exhausted me.
deleted by creator
Just trying to be helpful. Good day, sir.
“It’s not a war crime unless it’s grown in the Geneva region of Switzerland, otherwise it’s just a sparkling atrocity.”
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:
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.
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…