🥲A heartbreaking story in the style of “Russians don’t give up”.
The Russians carry their wounded man out into the street and order him to carry out a combat mission.
🤯Vanka with a broken leg, tied to a stick with an Esmarch tourniquet, crawled for a good three meters until the pilot of the “Predator” got tired of watching this melodrama.
💥 From the wounded to the 200th. And there are enough such stories in Toretsk for a series.
Not sure if that has kept up with the technology of drones.
It makes sense to not shoot the guy if you are there in person and can help him instead, taking him as a prisoner of war and getting him medical aid.
When you are there with a drone the only option is to put him out of his misery or leave him to die a slow death. Either way he probably dies.
If he has no hope for being helped, that’s his choice to take to end his life or not.
This is without a doubt a war crime. Lower than bombarding a theater full of children, but a war crime nonetheless.
Now that’s for a judge to evaluate the full context, but in the current situation an inquiry should be opened.
Looney tunes brain over here.
They’re actively holding this building, these guys didn’t just fly a drone to nowhere and attack. This is very clearly the midst of a contested area, if he’s in that area and no sign of surrender, I see no white flag or anything resembling looking for someone to surrender to, what I see is some shit head drunk Russians getting their shit stuffed because their morale is shit.
Russia is literally forcing these people to fight, coming in here and saying anything about a war crime especially when nothing even close to one happens makes you an absolute dopey dope
There are many doubts. He could be faking injury, drunk, still armed. The observer drone who suspected incapacitation was not the one attacking so you’d have to prove the actual attacking drone operator believed the target was incapacitated. Injured =/ incapacitated and his presence alone at the front occupies enemy territory which means they are a participant.
The bounds on what are ‘reasonable’ are very different in war than civilian life. This tendency to jump to ‘ope warcrime’ is as irrational as saying someone with an automatic weapon firing a burst commits a warcrime when the second round in a row strikes the victim. ‘They were injured with the first bullet so it is a warcrime and automatic weapons must be prohibited by law’!
Had this soldier been on a stretcher, and/or being attended by an unarmed someone with a red cross on their arm, or had waved a white anything in the air, I’d agree with calling it a warcrime. A still conscious soldier being tossed out on their ass by 2 armed soldiers and ‘appearing injured’ in this era where the enemy feigns injury/death to avoid drone strikes is not hors de combat.