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.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 9 points 5 days ago (6 children)

Oh I see, thanks for the exhaustive explanation. Then I shall retract my initial statement.

[–] Adm_Drummer@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I have good and bad days, but when it comes to lengthy explanations I try to be as level-headed as possible.

[–] HowAbt2morrow@futurology.today -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

On the contrary kind sir. If that complete, clear and concise explanation exhausted you [...]

excuse me? An exhaustive explanation does not mean that it has exhausted me.

[–] HowAbt2morrow@futurology.today 1 points 5 days ago

Just trying to be helpful. Good day, sir.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)