Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bloop_bleep]

From what I read it seems to be mainly not to subject them to "public curiosity."

[Random_Dragon]

I get the feeling that that part of the Geneva Convention is a case where the growth of mass media and the internet has kinda dated that particular law, and might undermine some of its original intent. That is, assuming said law actually is specifically about publicizing evidence of captured soldiers and their treatment.

Now it's a lot easier for a captured soldier to inform their family of their situation, plus there are logical reasons to make information about prisoners of war public. Being transparent about humane treatment, making sure that any "accidents" that befall a place where POWs are held come entirely from the enemy's own decision-making, etc.

Of course, it's also clear that publicizing these events also serves as a massive propaganda weapon. On top of that there's potentially some danger that posting about a captured soldier may put them or their family in danger, especially given the regime they're fighting under has a poor track record with human rights. Plus it does open the potential for public humiliation, as noted before.

That said, all of these complications would have been around well before the internet, and certainly would've been around back when that part of the Convention was written. It's just that the potential impact, positive or negative is magnified with every new method of making said information public that gets invented.


Of course if the objection is literally just about the humiliation and intimidation then this entire post is just about pointless, aside from the potential worry that modern-day technology makes it easier to turn even something as desirable as transparency into a propaganda weapon, and the concern that Putin might take advantage of knowing exactly which of his soldiers are surrendering.

[brewer bob]

Arnold Schwarzenegger has a message to the Russian people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e1BndTE6Lg

[martinuzz]

Not a bad speech at all.

Meanwhile, Putin talked about 'cleansing Russia' in a speech yesterday. I fear for the lives of Russian protestors and all who aren't in Putin's good graces.

[nenjin]

Guess Russia must be full of Nazis too......

[Starver]

1) We conquered this land centuries ago! It should keep being a part of our country only because of that! Sure... It isn't imperialistic. When Great Britain went to war with those American colonies when those went for independence it wasn't imperialism! After all, those Englishmen in the New World spoke the same language and had no national identity of their own

1. The difference is that this land is almost completely populated by Russians who don't want to be independent. This isn't an Algeria or India situation, this is a Falklands situation.

It was probably more that the Colonists went to war with Britain (the King Street incident was sparked by the local mob, though they came off worse... while Lexington was a mess and (whoever fired the first shot) neither of the opposing commanders managed to restrain their troops sufficiently so that it became a skirmish rather than the "making a point" that prior Army vs. Militiamen shows-of-strength had been).

Falklands, as an analogy, is not particularly good. The Argentinians weren't incidentally there as part of "giving the Falklands independence" but "taking 'back' Las Malvinas for Argentina". (Shades of Crimea 2014, maybe, to be vaguely topical.)

Could we describe Siberia as more of a Northern Ireland situation, except (and this is a big 'except'!) without any obvious Republican communities, just (at least vocally) the "More British than most of the rest of the British" Unionists? Or a form of Cornwall, but dialled down and with less opportunities for attracting surfers.

...I don't think there's a decent analogy in any other situation. So many complicating factors that are different between any two potential territories you might care to mention. So a bit of a fool's errand unless you do a bit of mix'n'matching with the necessary qualifications as to which bits (and possibly perspectives) you're repackaging.  

[Robsoie]

Arnold Schwarzenegger has a message to the Russian people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e1BndTE6Lg

A really good and inspiring speech. Hopefully it will reach the people that really needs to hear it.

[martinuzz]

Jesus F. Christ.
80 percent of all residential buildings in Mariupol have been destroyed by Russian artillery and bombardments, according to Mariupol's mayor.

[Starver]

Given the increasinly evil behavior of Russian forces (which Human Rights Watch has aggressively condemned), it is close to a miracle of forbearance that Ukraine is still taking prisoners in the first place, but broadcasting footage does, in fact, violate the letter of the Geneva Convention.

There's some pictures even on the BBC website that I'm uncomfortable with. Possible/probable/definite bodies in the foreground, to various degrees. Often 'tasteful', without direct gore. Though sometimes bloody footprints in the snow, perhaps from those who got there before the photographer and checked there was nothing to do/that could be done.

As examples:
There was that family killed in the street by a mortar (with their dog in a carrier, apparently that survived) ((in Mariupol?)), which had a blur in one area that I'm not sure what it was for but could easily have been a child's face tucked into their parent's body as they lay there (a mass of winter clothing made it otherwise not obvious it was not a single body).

A petrol-station forecourt north of Kiev with one prominent (possibly more) dead soldier, said to be identified as a Chechen through personal documents found on him, clearly part of a skirmish that ended badly for him and victorious for the defenders.

A Russian tank, fallen half into a ditch. From the upper hatch seems (and I've spent more time staring at it than I'd like to have) to be the upper body of someone who clearly did not manage to get out of the vehicle (but possibly more so than others, unseen inside). Strangely it seems to be closely wrapped in a green-cloth 'wrap', which I'm not sure is not standard 'tank-wear' for operators (it seems to not obscure their vision, and not necessaily restrict movement, might be useful against normal mechanical or temperature stresses for a crew-member) but could also have been a modesty-shroud added by others sometime prior to the photo. - Or I'm seeing something that's not there, and it's not somebody(/some body) at all, and that's mainly what I've been staring at it to try to work out.

 
All of these are, of course, not "naming and shaming" or otherwise potentially being 'out there' for someone close to suddenly realise "but that's my cousin/friend/colleague!" without any prior inkling. I'm sure there's worse battlefield/mid-evacuation photos out there that never got anywhere near being published in my general view.

The parade of captured Russians is definitely not good (though better than the same ones being shown as potentially anonymous bodies), even though I realise the 'good' intent behind this being shown. Black marks for showing prisoners with clear signs of (relatively mundane) mistreatment, such as injuries (may be combat-related, but can't be ruled out as post-capture) and the restraints/blindfolds are at the very least demeaning (and it's not useful to the purposes of the broadcast to 'anonymise' the captives by letting them obscure their own faces, so probably wasn't that).

Theoretically, treated decently (cleaned up and treated, somewhat) a later voluntary participation of something like a "Hi, Mama, I am safe, and here are the facts we and you were never told..." variety might be a more valid form of (counter-)propaganda, but takes longer to produce, might by then be too late to usefully use and can still be claimed as coercion by Russia's own message-spinners, enough for them to be unbothered and even willing to rebroadcast selectively-editted versions in pro-Russian news. All in all, there's no simple answer as to how to usefully use such a prisoner-parade. Against Russia, anyway. They might be able to tone them better to gain a higher moral ground among supporters, though. They probably have learnt this and explicitly ordered that more humane behaviour be (publically) shown in future.

Can't say I don't understand the immediate post-battle psyche involved, though, as the white heat of combat and adrenaline (or their afterglow) probably causes worse retaliations than this, not even on video or else on video that someone with some sense already blocks from being released. Should not happen, but can't not happen, and either gets looked at and handled less publically or else ends up a footnote in the fog of war for other compelling reasons. I'd highly encourage the 'good guys' to behave as best they can, but I'm not there so...

[McTraveller]

Arnold Schwarzenegger has a message to the Russian people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e1BndTE6Lg

We need more speeches like this!

[Lord Shonus]

That analysis does assume Ukraine will be backed into a corner. It is becoming increasinlgly clear that that wkn't likely be happening.

The primary reason Russia is getting so warcrimey is that they are losing this war. Quite badly.

[Sirus]

To me it's less like they're losing and more like they aren't winning. They're still some way from being defeated or retreating back to pre-war borders, but their advance has stalled out for something like a week now and they have yet to take any of the major cities. They're suffering from some pretty major logistics issues (which are only going to get worse as sanctions take their toll), their air force is nowhere near as effective as it probably should be, and the Ukrainians are kicking all sorts of ass.

That said, Ukraine is also taking some pretty hefty losses in terms of life and property damage, damaged or captured utilities, and so on. News from Mariupol makes it sound like the city is basically a pile of rubble now, and no matter the outcome of the war that will be a long and expensive clean-up operation. Until the Russian artillery stops bombarding and the soldiers stop fighting, the war isn't decided just yet.

Personally I think it isn't out of the question that Ukraine might indeed emerge victorious, which I never would have believed when the attack first started. But, it's dangerous to assume that Russia won't pull something nasty out of a back pocket and start turning things around.

[Il Palazzo]

That analysis does assume Ukraine will be backed into a corner. It is becoming increasinlgly clear that that wkn't likely be happening.

The primary reason Russia is getting so warcrimey is that they are losing this war. Quite badly.

Is it, though? Fighting to a stalemate in enemy territory is not the same as losing. You can just sit there, shelling and bombing, until the humanitarian crisis for your enemy grows so dire that they'll figure out it's better to agree to some form of the demands. And if Russia exits the war with e.g. the Donbas and Crimea recognised as no longer Ukraine, and some form of neutrality pledge, then it's a win for them. They will not have accomplished total victory, but it will be a victory nonetheless. Who knows, maybe the regime will suffer instability down the line, but that's not of immediate concern to either side of this war.
They'd be losing if e.g. you had Ukrainians retaking Crimea or pushing the Russians across the border. But that's unlikely to happen, and is certainly not happening now.

[Strongpoint]

That analysis does assume Ukraine will be backed into a corner. It is becoming increasinlgly clear that that wkn't likely be happening.

The primary reason Russia is getting so warcrimey is that they are losing this war. Quite badly.

Is it, though? Fighting to a stalemate in enemy territory is not the same as losing. You can just sit there, shelling and bombing, until the humanitarian crisis for your enemy grows so dire that they'll figure out it's better to agree to some form of the demands. And if Russia exits the war with e.g. the Donbas and Crimea recognised as no longer Ukraine, and some form of neutrality pledge, then it's a win for them. They will not have accomplished total victory, but it will be a victory nonetheless. Who knows, maybe the regime will suffer instability down the line, but that's not of immediate concern to either side of this war.
They'd be losing if e.g. you had Ukrainians retaking Crimea or pushing the Russians across the border. But that's unlikely to happen, and is certainly not happening now.

Any attempt to sign a peace treaty with some "neutrality" or recognition of any of Russian gains will mean the end of the current government (and probably Ukraine). I hope our politicians understand this.

Also, this "bomb enemy civilian targets until their population will decide that surrendering is a better option" strategy never worked. The closest to this is Japan 1945 and atomic bombs but even then it wasn't decided by Japanese people, they would likely keep fighting if the Emperor told them to do so.

[EuchreJack]

Indeed, targeting civilians is utter stupidity when you realize the term "civilian" means "everyone in the country not a soldier".
Ukraine's military is getting the benefit of more soldiers, and resistance appears to be getting even stiffer.

I don't think Ukraine should have to cede any territory that is NOT already occupied by Russia, nor make any future international commitments.
As for the theft of land, "Possession is nine tenths of the law".  If the war ends in the next six months, it is most likely going to be with Russia getting some land.

Russia, at least, will not sign a peace treaty unless their leaders wish to sign a peace treaty. I hope OUR (United States) politicians don't sell out Ukraine by negotiating with Russia without including Ukraine.  There is a sad history of that sort of thing occurring.