What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
You see them bombing Ukrainian forces on the road. Looks like they don't need a bomb enemy badge.

I was asking a badge from you if you may please so the topic of thread may remain on Russia Ukraine conflict, like that for death highway. The thing is, you cannot differentiate unless you look at it from a neutral point of view. However, I don't blame people for their patriotism.
 
It doesn't matter what you think, the law is very clear on this, please feel free to google it.

Yeah, wounded soldiers, surrendering. Nothing says about attacking retreating but able to fight forces.
 

Attachments

  • Doc1.jpg
    Doc1.jpg
    102.6 KB · Views: 25
Then why the US is not doing it? If it is so easy as you said, the US would have done it already.
Guys, we can knit pick, but here are the facts.

The US military is the most technologically advanced, best funded and powerful in the world.

The Russian economy is the size of South Korea.
 
Who cares how much support such a government would have? It's not like Eastern Europe is run democratically. This whole mess started with a series of color revolutions and Western-backed coup to begin with.
In Afghanistan the USA bought Northern Alliance in power for 20 years but look at what happened when the occupying power Nato left, within days they were toppled and Ashraf Ghani and co were on planes to Europe. The Pro Russian parties need to have support which i believe they do not have and this is why a separatist state will be formed with Kiev as its capital. The rest of Ukraine needs to be neutral between Russia and Nato otherwise 2nd war will be around the corner.
In Iraq the majority Kurds and Iraqi shias were anti Saddam so they easily came to power.
 
Put real sanctions on Russia and the west will be paying $150 to$200 per barrel of crude.
As for gas Europe has no alternative to what Russia supplies.
The West can play with sanctions for show for a couple of months anything more than that and you will see the European economies collapse as if 2007 was just child's play.
Well many Russian banks are about to be cut out of SWIFT, which will impact imports and exports.

Oil and gas prices are about to soar. (Would be a good time for Gulf countries to work with Iraq to lay a pipeline from them to the Turkish pipeline network connected to Europe.

But also, wheat prices (Russia supplies 18% of world supply) and all the downstream industries connected to it will be effected, especially in developing countries. Russia also exports a lot of fertilizer (20% of world supply), so agricultural production around the world could drop severely. Investments need to be done to raise agricultural productivity around the world to minimize the impact of the food cutoff, or else we could see massive famine around the world.

 
Spoken like someone with no knowledge of the subject:

“The law of armed conflicts clearly forbids the killing or wounding of an enemy who … is … hors de combat.” - examples of war crimes that could be considered as grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions include: “Denial of quarter (i.e., killing or wounding an enemy unable to fight due to sickness or wounds or one who is making a genuine offer of surrender).”
Sorry, but the @Oldman1 does have a point. Back in Desert Storm, we were briefed as to what qualified as a legal combatant, because, like it or not, Muslim militaries do not see any separation between 'soldier' and 'civilian'. That may offends some people but that is for a different debate. I still have my folder of that brief to this day.

A retreating enemy force DOES NOT qualify as "hors de combat" or out of action, especially if that enemy force is still fully armed, which the retreating Iraqi force were.

The tank busters had a question regarding the tank's legitimacy as a target. The tank is treated like a rifle. If the crew is out of the tank, that would be the equivalent of an infantryman dropping his rifle. That would be hors de combat. But if the tank is rolling, we do not know if the tank is still ammo-ed and/or under orders to conduct combat, hence, a rolling tank is a legitimate target, even if the tank is rolling in retreat. If any moving vehicle display the white flag, which is universally regarded as a signal to surrender, then it is up to the individual to make the call and situations like this are problematic. A tank is an offensive platform. A car is not, even though it can be turned into a weapon. A rolling tank displaying a white flag would not convince anyone that it is hors de combat, even if the crew is outside on the shell. So for any vehicle that was originally designed for combat, the best way for the crew to survive is to abandon it.

In order to fully qualify as hors de combat you must be VISIBLY disarmed. In the case of an airborne combatant, like my F-16, dropping the landing gear is a VISIBLE sign of taking myself out of combat. The moment I raise gear, that is a sign that I put myself back into combatant status.
 
NATO/West has been the main provocateur in this situation.

It makes sense for Russia to invade Ukraine, I totally understand why they would take action now. For the past 8 years Ukraine has been attacking and shelling the Donbass region and killing people in a majority ethnic Russian area; violating both of the Minsk agreements.

On top of that they have been inviting NATO to setup military bases and weapon systems to their land. How is this not provocative to Russia? Does Ukraine have the right to join NATO as a sovereign country? Yes. Does Russia have the right to defend its national security? Yes. Both conditions are true and legitimate.

Russia cannot allow a NATO bordering state that would put NATO just a few hundred miles away from Moscow. If during the cold war, Mexico allowed Russia to setup military bases and weapon systems, the US would attack Mexico before anything like that could happen.

NATO was designed to be anti-Soviet, problem is Soviet Union is gone but NATO still exists and it's sole purpose is to be anti-Russia.

The same mercenaries in NATO have destabilized and killed many in Libya, Iraq, Syria with un-welcomed military intervention and they want to lecture Russia when Russia takes action to protect it's legitimate national security? Unbelievable, this is a charade about human rights.
 
Last edited:
Yikes. Ukraine has lost for sure.

Here is a tricky question for you since this time around, situation is bit complex than ever before....
India is supporting Russia and
Indian volunteer is fighting for Ukraine

Now, what will be the result in this situation?

I have an answer and I can explain that but will discuss later 😜
 
In Afghanistan the USA bought Northern Alliance in power for 20 years but look at what happened when the occupying power Nato left, within days they were toppled and Ashraf Ghani and co were on planes to Europe. The Pro Russian parties need to have support which i believe they do not have and this is why a separatist state will be formed with Kiev as its capital. The rest of Ukraine needs to be neutral between Russia and Nato otherwise 2nd war will be around the corner.
In Iraq the majority Kurds and Iraqi shias were anti Saddam so they easily came to power.
Yes but Ukraine is different from Afghanistan because the Russian culture and the Ukrainian culture are similar. The cultural difference between Afghans and the democratic culture that the US wanted to impose on them was huge, particularly religiously. Plus, Russians are right there next to Ukraine. They haven't come to Ukraine from ten thousands of miles away. They're just right there and they can continue to support their puppet government. Plus, they will take written guarantees from Ukraine about their neutrality and they can always find an excuse to interfere again.
 
Here is a tricky question for you since this time around, situation is bit complex than ever before....
India is supporting Russia and
Indian volunteer is fighting for Ukraine

Now, what will be the result in this situation?

I have an answer and I can explain that but will discuss later 😜

That means Russia will win militarily but lose economically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom