Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[alimobin memon]

False claim by Russians.

Russia’s Fake “Electronic Bomb”

How a fake based on a parody spread to the Western mainstream

medium.com

Did the USS Donald Cook get electronically shut down in the Black Sea by a Russian aircraft?

Answer (1 of 10): Original Question: Did the USS Donald Cook get electronically shut down in the Black Sea by a Russian aircraft? No. Every single report of this nonsense claim has been traced back to Russian sources, and they’re all utter bullshit. All systems were not jammed, electrical power...

www.quora.com

So, counter arguing an article with an article. We live in world where bbc and cnn are buggest liars.

Cant trust all 3 articles. Could be true or fake.

 

[gambit]

Article 4 does not applies to Russian in Russia because the entity is a non-state entity. Ie (NOT A Party to the conflict), as in State of Russia, instead of Russian.

Let's use your American Volunteer Group example, you said they satisfy 1-6. But this is impossible if we are talking about the land (Chinese) instead of party (as in ROC), AVG was a unit attached to the Republic of China, and sworn allegiance to Republic of China, so in practicality, this is a ROC unit comprises of American and British Volunteer, they were paid slightly higher (I think they were about 20-30% higher than USAAF paid, don't quote me on that tho)

Am not sure if we can use this line to disqualify the individuals inside the AVG as legal mercenaries. Granted, the bulk of the GC were created after WW II, but if for the sake of discussion we apply modern day criteria to the past, the Republic of China (ROC) is a political organization while the Wagner Group is a business organization, the ROC would be akin to the Repugnicans and Democraps having their own armed forces.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Article 4 does not applies to Russian in Russia because the entity is a non-state entity. Ie (NOT A Party to the conflict), as in State of Russia, instead of Russian.

The key thing is that Wagner is participating in an armed conflict and Russia is a party to that conflict.
This means that no Russian can be a mercenary in this conflict.
A Georgian Wagner employee would be a mercenary.

Let's use your American Volunteer Group example, you said they satisfy 1-6. But this is impossible if we are talking about the land (Chinese) instead of party (as in ROC), AVG was a unit attached to the Republic of China, and sworn allegiance to Republic of China, so in practicality, this is a ROC unit comprises of American and British Volunteer, they were paid slightly higher (I think they were about 20-30% higher than USAAF paid, don't quote me on that tho)

I do not think You should compare wages to USAAF wages. You should compare their wages to those of Chinese pilots.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers , they made 3x that of USAAF pilots, which I assume is much more that Chinese pilots.

They were hired by a company in the US, but also they are nowadays considered as members of the USAAF during their operation. I do not think it matters, since the duty has to be ”official”, but were clandestine at the time.

There were no laws banning mercenaries until after WWII so status was less important.

The key seems to be if they are considered part of the armed forces, and the roundels indicate this, even if hired by a PMC.

I think that the intention of the mercenary laws is to allow countries to use mercenaries in the traditional sense (Wagner certainly then qualifies), but block individuals or companies to use them.

View attachment 929694

Notice, the AVG P-40 is using ROC Roundel, not USAAF Roundel, or a completely blank paint scheme

In this case, if we compare Wagner and AVG. If we use your definition and interpretation of Article 47, Which is The Party to the Conflict does not count we only count the country. Then let's ask the same question to both organisation on both war

Was Wagner Group an organisation to the party of the Conflict? Russia is a party to the conflict. So yes
Was AVG an organisation to the party of the Conflict? China is a party to the conflict, so the answer is also yes.

On the other hand,

Was Russian Wagner operator is a national or resident of a party to a conflict? Yes, they are Russian and a resident in Russia
Was American in AVG a nation or resident of a party to a conflict? Yes, they reside in ROC during their service, hence a resident in China, which is a party to the conflict.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact, if article 4 was interpreted the way you said, if we do not distinguish between the country and the "Party" to the conflict.

Then there would be no Mercenary by this definition, because everyone would have to reside in the combat zone to fight in that combat zone, which give literally everyone the status of state actor.....Because remember D is

A person is NEITHER a national of the Party to the conflict NOR a resident of territories controlled by a party to the conflict.

I mean, if you fight in Iraq, you have to be a resident of Iraq regardless of your citizenship status, as in you have to be physically living in Iraq in order to fight in Iraq, how do you be a resident of somewhere else and fight in Iraq?

As I said, I would not consider someone to be resident, unless they were living in the country before they were recruited.

Definition:
a person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis.

This means that you considers the country to be your home.
If You are employed by a company, and are sent to another country and move around as the front line moves, you are not a resident.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

In a way, granting citizenship is legally easier to prove over legal residency. Also faster by simple fiat and a piece of paper. Legal residency requires at least a cover address somewhere, even a Post Office box number in a town or city somewhere. Proof of citizenship are mobile with the person and a copy with the State.


We can dissect this further.

Doctors without borders | The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law

It is clear that the category of “mercenary” cannot be extended to cover some grey area regarding voluntary combatants who do not share the nationality of the belligerents and decide to take part in a conflict,​

Now, let us assume the person is medically rational. We are not talking about a person with known/unknown mental illness. The question then is why would anyone who DOES NOT share the nationalities (plural) of belligerents and yet decide to join the armed conflict on either side. The answer is for financial gain.

or employees of private military companies present in situations of conflict.​

Now we have a problem. What if a person DOES share the nationality of Side A and decide to join a PMC that is hired by Side A to fight against Side B? This would disqualify him from being a mercenary as how the Wagner Group is doing with Russian convicts.

The main rationale of this category is to impose the stigma of financial greed as opposed to the virtues of patriotism and honor that would characterize regular combatants.​

I do not think that people generally volunteered to fight against Franco for personal gain. They felt a need to fight fascism. Likewise, there were 10,000 Swedish volunteers fighting for Finland during the Winter War.
Finns were considered brothers, and ”their fight is our fight” was the motto.
”Finlands sak är vår”.

I also think that certain people want to be in combat feeling the adrenaline.

Because a war remains a political event even when deteriorated into fighting, when fighting in a war, we expects high ideals to be the ONLY motivation for someone to risk limbs and even life. So for soldiering, we cast down money and elevate country as reason why anyone should fight in a war, and the GC attempted to quantify this ideal by using the shared nationality criteria. Essentially, via a PMC you can fight for your country without being a sworn agent for your country. If the PMC decide to hire itself into another war where your nationality is not involved, then you would become a mercenary in that war.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/conv-mercenaries-1989/article-1?activeTab=undefined

2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:​

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :​

(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or​

(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;​

(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;​

(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;​

(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and​

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.​

Section 2(c) is of interest. What is the likelihood of Wagner successfully hiring a Ukrainian in Russia to fight against Ukrainians in Ukraine?

Section 2(a) is already in play. Ukraine became sovereign at the breakup of the SU.

Section 2(b) is necessary for the PMC to hire anyone that the State either cannot or refused to enlist.

I think that section 2 is not applicable to ”armed conflicts”

 

[Solidify]

Update May 15 :
Ukraine suffer heavy losses in Bahkmut says Russia
https://youtu.be/MMKHhueqy5I

No Ukrainian break through in Bahkmut
https://youtu.be/WriFidsoDDs

 

[jhungary]

The key thing is that Wagner is participating in an armed conflict and Russia is a party to that conflict.
This means that no Russian can be a mercenary in this conflict.
A Georgian Wagner employee would be a mercenary.

Then it would have been the same for Georgian, because if you count the country of resident to the conflict, not the party.

I mean, if you have to count that way, then you would have to count the whole of Ukraine, and the whole of Russia, not just the part that they controlled or the citizenship because it also would have involved the residency here.

On the other hand, how would you define the dynamic when one part of the employee is counted as mercenary and the other part is not even if they are doing the same job, I mean, by definition if a company hiring a mercenary, then said company would be conducting mercenary business, it cannot be it is and it isn't at the same time....

I do not think You should compare wages to USAAF wages. You should compare their wages to those of Chinese pilots.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers , they made 3x that of USAAF pilots, which I assume is much more that Chinese pilots.

They were hired by a company in the US, but also they are nowadays considered as members of the USAAF during their operation. I do not think it matters, since the duty has to be ”official”, but were clandestine at the time.

There were no laws banning mercenaries until after WWII so status was less important.

The key seems to be if they are considered part of the armed forces, and the roundels indicate this, even if hired by a PMC.

I think that the intention of the mercenary laws is to allow countries to use mercenaries in the traditional sense (Wagner certainly then qualifies), but block individuals or companies to use them.

It depends on how you quantify "Private Gain" as I said, I don't remember or have no information on whether or not so I am not equip to talk about that.

But I would agree that it is moot on this point because Protocol I does not exist before 1949

As I said, I would not consider someone to be resident, unless they were living in the country before they were recruited.

Definition:
a person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis.

This means that you considers the country to be your home.
If You are employed by a company, and are sent to another country and move around as the front line moves, you are not a resident.

Problem is, it does not specify in Protocol I what is residence in this case, nor was it specified, nor had it required the person to be a resident prior to service, nor had it specified a term beside said service is valid.

I mean, residence can mean long time/permanent residence and temporary residence with prospectus to stay if we are talking about the definition as per immigration. Which both would consider resident of a country either in permanent or temporary basis.

So by that definition, we would have to fit it at minimal level, because that was not explicitly excluded in said treaty. Had it said "continuous residency" or permanent residency" or even defined an actual length, then this would be different, but the fact is, that article did not make that distinction. So I could argue a person who arrive in a country with a travel visa immediately before the start of combat operation can be seen as at least a temporary resident. Because that would be the definition of residence status of said person.

Am not sure if we can use this line to disqualify the individuals inside the AVG as legal mercenaries. Granted, the bulk of the GC were created after WW II, but if for the sake of discussion we apply modern day criteria to the past, the Republic of China (ROC) is a political organization while the Wagner Group is a business organization, the ROC would be akin to the Repugnicans and Democraps having their own armed forces.

I would argue that both ROC and CPC were both engage in the same war against the Japanese, that would most likely render this argument moot, because it would have slot in to either definition of the Government of China at that point.

Because that that juncture, there were 2 government existed for China as it was in a civil war before this happened.

Case in point, would you consider a Chinese KMT soldier fighting with Mao's CPC force in China to be a mercenary??

 

[alimobin memon]

Ukraine attack or offensive repulsed. Not sure if true but that is circulating.

Note: its not counter offensive that is planned.

 

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1657883882476167168

Imagine Russia losing areas it took them months and thousand of casualties to capture only to lose them in a matter of days.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Then it would have been the same for Georgian, because if you count the country of resident to the conflict, not the party.

I mean, if you have to count that way, then you would have to count the whole of Ukraine, and the whole of Russia, not just the part that they controlled or the citizenship because it also would have involved the residency here.

I think the following apply in this conflict.

Anyone which is a citizen of Russia or Ukraine is not a mercenary.
Anyone which is a resident of Russia or Ukraine us not a mercenary.
A tourist is not a resident.

You typically have to have a permit to stay in Sweden.
Refugees entering Sweden have to request such a permit.
They may get a temporary or permanent permit.
Only those having a permanent permit should be considered resident here IMO,
but probably the time is important. If you have been living in a country with a temporary permit for 20 years, it should count for something.
If your first job in the country is with the PMC and you enter fighting, then it should not count as residency.

On the other hand, how would you define the dynamic when one part of the employee is counted as mercenary and the other part is not even if they are doing the same job, I mean, by definition if a company hiring a mercenary, then said company would be conducting mercenary business, it cannot be it is and it isn't at the same time....

How they are treated is up to the nation capturing the individual. Nothing blocks them from ignoring that they captured individuals may be mercenaries and justbtreat them as ordinary soldiers, or they choose to investigate each individual.

It depends on how you quantify "Private Gain" as I said, I don't remember or have no information on whether or not so I am not equip to talk about that.

The rules are fuzxy. You must be paid ”substantially more”.
A person that enters war to get an advantage in ”after-life” is also doing it for personal gain.

But I would agree that it is moot on this point because Protocol I does not exist before 1949




Problem is, it does not specify in Protocol I what is residence in this case, nor was it specified, nor had it required the person to be a resident prior to service, nor had it specified a term beside said service is valid.

I mean, residence can mean long time/permanent residence and temporary residence with prospectus to stay if we are talking about the definition as per immigration. Which both would consider resident of a country either in permanent or temporary basis.

So by that definition, we would have to fit it at minimal level, because that was not explicitly excluded in said treaty. Had it said "continuous residency" or permanent residency" or even defined an actual length, then this would be different, but the fact is, that article did not make that distinction. So I could argue a person who arrive in a country with a travel visa immediately before the start of combat operation can be seen as at least a temporary resident. Because that would be the definition of residence status of said person.

And it would be up to the court to decide.
I certainly would say no to that in a jury.

I would argue that both ROC and CPC were both engage in the same war against the Japanese, that would most likely render this argument moot, because it would have slot in to either definition of the Government of China at that point.

The ROC was the government at the time, but all were citizens of China.

Because that that juncture, there were 2 government existed for China as it was in a civil war before this happened.

Case in point, would you consider a Chinese KMT soldier fighting with Mao's CPC force in China to be a mercenary??

He is Chinese, so not a mercenary. He would no longer be a KMT soldier.

 

[LeGenD]

So, counter arguing an article with an article. We live in world where bbc and cnn are buggest liars.

Cant trust all 3 articles. Could be true or fake.

Mainstream Media around the world is mixed bag in terms of telling the truth. There is no way to tell which MM source is biggest liar - statements and articles can be independently checked for accuracy at most.

I did not cite CNN and BBC articles but a report from DFRLab and a Quora response from an electronics technician.

The DFRLab can show that the story was a fake, based on a parody “social media post” from a sailor who never was. Moreover, the fake had been in existence since April 2014, including in the Russian state media, and had already been debunked.

&

No. Every single report of this nonsense claim has been traced back to Russian sources, and they’re all utter bullshit.

All systems were not jammed, electrical power generation was not stopped, and the crew did not resign in panic once they returned to port.

While it IS possible to ‘jam’ (really overload the receiver) of any system, it is not possible to do this instantly, or on multiple systems, much less the entire EW suite. The possibility of doing it with the amount of power that a single aircraft could generate is laughable.

Electrical power generation CAN be overloaded, by things like an EMP, but not with anything a single aircraft can generate without vanishing in a fireball.

And the most hilarious claim was the crew resigning. US Navy Enlisted personnel cannot ‘resign’ under any circumstances. Officers CAN resign their commissions, but it is nowhere near instantaneous, and if they haven’t finished their first period of service they would be laughed at and abused for the rest of their natural lives.

This story resurfaces every 6 months or so, and every time the Sailors on Quora have to call Bullshit. Because it was bullshit.

Here’s a simple test to tell when something like this is nonsense. The Cook has a crew of somewhere about 280 people. None of them has ever said anything about this supposed incident.

OpSec is important and all, but the day 280 sailors go a few years without telling THIS sea story hasn’t happened yet.

The second way you can tell the story is nonsense is that every Russian aircraft that comes near a US vessel for one of their close fly bys isn’t blotted from the sky by the ship’s anti-air assets before they can try it again.

This was in fact a Russian ship straffing drill.

Maybe focus on the contents of a fact-checking report and what an electronics technician have to say about this matter for a change?

If Russia has such EW capability, it would have shut down both NATO and Israel in Syria, and Ukraine in a matter of hours. Be realistic.

Russians and truth? Absolutely.

Russian EW Weaknesses Endure While Other Nations Innovate | AIN

Russia’s EW system development has failed to change direction to account for inherent weaknesses.

www.ainonline.com

Ukraine Just Captured One Of Russia’s Most Capable Aerial Electronic Warfare Pods

Russia’s lost Khibiny-U electronic warfare pod that flies on its advanced Flanker fighters will be a prize for foreign intelligence agencies.

www.thedrive.com

Russian super duper magical EW solutions in enemy hands....

 

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1658018545236623362

 

[Hack-Hook]

Russia is not taking on the entire world. Russia is fighting only Ukraine, and is doing a shiddy job at it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US went anywhere we want. Yes, we met resistance in many places, but essentially, militarily speaking, we went anywhere we want. That is not happening in Ukraine for the Russian military. The VKS could not even fly anywhere it want. Weapons do not fight. People do. And the Ukrainians are doing an excellent job at it. Poutine could finally employ the entire might of the Russian military into Ukraine and could finally subjugate the Ukrainians, but that would break the Russian military.

In Iraq the country was fighting a coalition of 30+ country while it's army systematically dismantled for a decade and was under sanction for more
In Ukraine the country was building it's army for last 8 years and 30+ country is actually provide weapon for free for them while Russia is alone in the warif you can't see the difference I don't knew what to say.

 

[alimobin memon]

In Iraq the country was fighting a coalition of 30+ country while it's army systematically dismantled for a decade and was under sanction for more
In Ukraine the country was building it's army for last 8 years and 30+ country is actually provide weapon for free for them while Russia is alone in the warif you can't see the difference I don't knew what to say.

Leave those who ignore. Ignorance is a bliss.

 

[Ali_Baba]

Zelensky meets Sunak in UK today to confirm hundreds of new missiles and attack drones​

Volodymyr Zelensky to meet Rishi Sunak in UK today

The trip is the latest stop on a tour of European capitals by the Ukrainian wartime leader.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1658032248031985666