Gasping for air from a trench in eastern Ukraine, an infantryman was ready for the worst when a suffocating white smoke spread into his position.

A Russian drone had just dropped a gas grenade into the trench, an internationally banned practice in warfare used to suffocate Ukrainian soldiers hiding inside. Forced out in the open, the Ukrainians immediately became vulnerable targets for Russian drones and artillery.

. . .

Russia has increasingly deployed chemical agents in its grand offensive to occupy the last cities in the Donbas region under Ukrainian control. The suffocation tactic is to take out entrenched personnel and dampen the morale of Ukrainian soldiers who – severely outmanned and outgunned – have been withdrawing village by village in the east for nearly a year.

MBFC
Archive

    • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Let Ukraine off the leash, they need to stop playing by all the rules. Hit them back with ruthless parity.

      • Randomgal
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        49
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        This attitude is how we got into the genocide being committed by Israel. The solution to violence is not more violence.

        • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Russia IS committing genocide with the intent to wipe out the very concept of Ukraine. The solution to being genocided is to fight back with every tooth and every nail.

            • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              23
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yes, but nothing in the rules of war or international law say you can’t attack the enemy nation’s territory. The people loaning Ukraine weapons are the ones saying that. The same ones that held up many supplies at a critical time during the Spring 2024 offensive.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It is not allowed by the US. It is not disallowed by international war crime agreements, but that doesn’t make it allowed if something else is preventing it.

            • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              3 months ago

              Man, someone needs to get a hold of Putin and inform him there’s international laws he’s breaking.

              • Display name@feddit.nu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                3 months ago

                Sorry? Why did you feel the need to be rude? Someone breaking the law isn’t a justification for you to do it.

                Ukraine should very much adhere to the law and rules of war even though Russia has no such intentions. In the very least because weapon supplies is kinda tied to the fact that they are not doing what Russia does.

                • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  My intent isn’t malicious. I just want to stress the point that this isn’t a game - a game with referees. There are real lives being lost by playing nice. The west needs to up their support while allowing Ukraine to use the same tactics, short of rape and torture, as Russia.

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Russia: Genociding wildly

          You: “We shouldn’t get involved, that would just increase the violence.”

          The only language people like Putin and Hitler understand is violence, they do what they do because they think nobody will dare stop them.

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            3 months ago

            You missed the point. The point the other guy made is that for the past 50+ countries have turned a blind eye to Isreal not playing by the rules and that has let Israel become more and more ruthless to a point where they’re the ones effectively committing genocide. Maybe Ukraine won’t turn out like Israel but is it really the door we want to open?

            Just because Russia is getting increasing more violent and inhumane doesn’t mean Ukraine should follow the same path. Nobody is saying Ukraine shouldn’t defend itself (or fight on Russian soil), we’re just saying we shouldn’t turn a blind eye if Ukraine starts shelling humanitarian corridors, chopping off legs of prisoners, gas striking the front etc.

            • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Do you know why there are no nazis committing holocausts across Europe right now?

              Because we killed them all.

              • TehWorld@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Hate to break it to you, but they just moved to the USA and started calling themselves Republicans.

                • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  They were always here, they were southerners, Hitler wrote about how Jim crow was an example Germany needed to follow.

                  Black GIs came home to be tortured and killed.

                  Because after the Civil War we DIDN’T clean out the leadership and they simply slimed back into power later.

              • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                Go learn history. This “we must show them” mentality is how after WW1 Nazis got into a position of power. And no, we didn’t kill all of them. Some were sent to the Hague, most were picked up by the US (unsurprisingly US now has a fascism problem) and the rest (the wider population) got collectively guilted out of nazism. Oh and we made sure Nazi and Fascist are so bad words that actual Nazis and Fascists use them in a derogatory way to not associate themselves with that word.

                The idea that we should ruthlessly kill Russians because Putin is a horrible person is Lemmygrad level of idiotic.

              • Randomgal
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                3 months ago

                Actually it’s because you killed thousands of innocent Japanese, using a weapon that could wipe all life on Earth. (So they moved other there of course, they sounds like a fascist dream)

                • Apollo42@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Everybody always gets hung up on the nukes but I never see anyone complaining about the firebombing which killed many times more people (or the Japanese and their many attempts at biological warfare).

                  War is inherently bad, and using powerful weapons to end it sooner is the pragmatic and often moral choice. Would you have preferred that the allies invaded Japan, causing millions more to die? Or perhaps simply blocade Japan, causing millions more to die? It’s easy to be moralistic when you don’t have to make decisions that have millions of lives hanging on them.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Sure. That’s not what they were saying though. They were saying supplying arms to Israel is bad because they’re using it to commit a genocide, so we shouldn’t provide the means for Ukraine to defend themselves because it must be equally bad. Fuck that. If Ukraine doesn’t win Russia is going to do horrible things. They must be stopped. We should be providing the means for Ukraine to do this and allowing them to use them how they see it needed.

              • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                At no point did I say Ukraine shouldn’t get what it needs to end the war. What I said is that we shouldn’t let Ukraine get away with the same things Russia is doing. If for example Ukraine would gas the Russian front line we shouldn’t be “well Russia did it first”. Chemical warfare is not acceptable. Turning a blind eye towards atrocities is how we got Isreal.

                The other guy is pretty much saying it would be okay if Ukraine dirty bombed Moscow because he is literally implying we should kill all Russians.

        • 1D10@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Some times and with some people, yes violence is the answer.

          Can you explain any other solution that leaves Ukraine with its territory and its compleat self rule?

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s Russia. It’d be easier finding a “legal” needle in the haystack of war crimes.

  • Olap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Gas in WW1 changed the battlefield for about 6 weeks whilst they scrambled for gas masks, but after this it didn’t have the effect either side thought it would. A stupid distraction that will earn Putin and his generals a trip to the Hague for sure

    • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’ll never see the Hague, the whole argument that Putin and Xi are having is that laws should be enforced by strength of arms, and what’re you gonna do about it?!?!

      History never sounds pretty when it rhymes.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      A gas mask wouldn’t work for this though, right? If it suffocates by displacing oxygen then you’d need an SCBA, not just a gas mask. That’s a lot more kit to supply and carry around.

      • Olap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The thing about air: there’s a lot of it. Not many gases take that long to settle/dissipate. And a gas mask is pretty effective at filtering. I do imagine worst case scenario in the heaviest bombardment is a brief evacuation of current line of defense only, as this is what happened back in the somme. It was far more effective vs artillery: artillery regiments weren’t equipped as well and thus they were denied counter battery fire for enough time to allow front lines to cross no mans land. Which were backed up by creeping barrages, which I haven’t read much out in Ukraine yet

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Partially. The article is pretty thorough, and covers many angles. I suggest reading it if you haven’t.

        It doesn’t cover the part about displacing oxygen, but I don’t think there are chemical agents that do that.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Lots an lots of any gas will, but then again so would water. It’s mostly an issue in confined spaces.

          If you see someone lying next to a container of liquid nitrogen, don’t follow them in.

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 months ago

    Later when the same thing is done back on them they will express their outrage that underhanded tactics like they do are used against them.

    • Doom@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’ll be because someone shot their drone down or launched their armament back too. Or just the wind will carry it at their own

  • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Is that title extremely confusing, or just me? I’m suffering from a concussion and was told to watch for signs of confusion.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Ah, so just tear gas. That’s paradoxically both more banned and less provocative than, like, Sarin.

    If they did actual chemical weapons, it’s time for the next historical event. The US has apparently laid out what happens next in painstaking detail.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      It is a chemical weapon. What historical event? The US does nothing but sit on its hands and talk a big game. They would probably confiscate the gas to be used on innocents in Gaza.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I feel like I answered that question already. “The US has apparently laid out what happens next in painstaking detail”. I was not in the room, so I don’t know what that means exactly, but it’s a bunch of specifically allocated military facilities to be bombed out or something.

        Please dump the polemic somewhere else. I’m upset about Gaza too.

        • Squizzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Russia has used chemical weapons before to a silent US. Call it what you want but I dont have faith in the word of the US government.

          Glad you do, all the while you are upset about Gaza.

          I wasnt being snarky I wanted to know the historical event, your comment was worded strangely.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            nah, farm, we already saw the American “red line” against gas attacks in Syria, the answer has always been “do nothing”, also the American MIC would never sell gas, not enough margin, now mining companies on the other hand

  • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ll plug an interesting blog post on the topic of using chemical weapons. The post concerns itself mostly with lethal weapons, but I feel like some of the points apply here as well.

    The essence is that for modern military systems, mobility and the relative cost of manufacturing, storing and employing (lethal) chemical weapons compared to protective equipment render them much less valuable than conventional explosive munitions. They see usage mostly between weaker static armies, which lack the equipment, training or command doctrines for modern warfare.

    The banning of chemical weapons was done because they weren’t generally very useful for the modern systems of the superpowers at the time. Russia cracking them out again suggests they no longer have all the capabilities of a modern superpower. Which probably isn’t super new for most people, but might be worth spelling out anyway.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    3 months ago
    Kyiv Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Kyiv Independent:

    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Ukraine
    Wikipedia about this source

    Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:

    MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
    Wikipedia about this source

    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/kyiv-independent-bias/
    https://kyivindependent.com/silent-killer-russia-boosts-grinding-donbas-advance-with-chemical-warfare/

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support