Russia accused of using chemical gas attacks against Ukrainian soldiers
theguardian.com
Ukraine soldiers describe ‘almost daily’ illegal gas attacks as invaders seek to dislodge them from embedded positions
Russia has been accused of systematically using illegal chemical gas attacks against Ukrainian soldiers.
Ukrainian troops told the Daily Telegraph that they have been subjected to regular attacks from small drones dropping teargas and other chemicals.
The use of such substances, which is known as CS, is banned during wartime under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Moscow was accused of using chemical weapons in a drone assault on the port of Mariupol in the early stages of its invasion in February 2022.
Oh look, another warcrime that the rest of the world will ignore. Just like it in the corner with the genocide.
Don't worry they will spend months on end debating if hamas was in a hospital cos 6 civilians died instead of addressing this.
Pssst... wrong genocide. This thread is about Ukranians, not Palestinians.
I my point was people will talk about Palestinians endlessly instead of addressing the war crimes of russia at all.
Is this not the shit that American cops use on American civilians like...all the time? Genuine question, would like to know if I'm wrong about that.
The Geneva convention doesn't apply to your own citizens, just to war. The US made sure they had that exception in hand
When they formally banned tear gasses (including this specific one) in 1993, since the Geneva convention only had a loose definition, the US again reserved an exception for domestic use.
So yes. The US has promised they wouldn't use tear gas against any other country because that's inhumane and too horrible, regardless of the reason for war. But it's fine if they use it on protestors. That's totally fine, they shouldn't have gotten too rowdy.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/us/military-tear-gas-protesters-trnd/index.html
Ok, I’m not a bootlicker at all, but I definitely want to clear things up here. CS is banned for use in wartime between nations because deploying it runs the very real risk of escalation, especially if the belligerents both have access to not only CS but VX nerve agents. In the fog of war a unit hit with CS might hop on the radio and squawk out that they’re being gassed. The individuals within the unit aren’t going to know what they’re being gassed with, they’re just screaming “GAS GAS GAS!” and hurriedly donning MOPP suits. If you think your troops just got gassed with Vx, you very well might decide to utilize your own Vx reserves, which would then cause the other belligerent to break out their Vx reserves, and next thing you know you’ve got another Ypres on your hands.
This is basically what happened during WW1 by the way. The Allies were actually the first to use chemical weapons, and they used tear-inducing irritants. Proliferation happened, so it went from tear gas in 1914, to chlorine and phosgene in 1915, to mustard gas in 1917. Additionally, usage of gas became a standard part of a pre-attack artillery barrage.
Do I think cops should be using CS against peaceful demonstrations? No, of course not. I also recognize that CS gas is not really “inhumane and too horrible” in the grand scheme of things, and it’s ban from military use has nothing to do with its actual effects on people and everything to do with the horrifying potential for escalation its use creates. Don’t hit me with “well you’ve never experienced CS either, I’ve qualled annually in the CS chamber, doing jumping jacks and push-ups to keep me from holding my breath while an NBC weirdo lights up a CS candle and jerks it under his MOPP suit. I’ve also been tear gassed by cops during peaceful protests.
Well I didn't know that. Good information.
You’re welcome. The cops do enough shit for us to hate them for, we don’t need to mistakenly spread stuff that can get debunked and be used to undermine our real grievances.
Yep, teargas, which is illegal to use in war, is regularly used by US cops against its own citizens.
Difference in usage. Tear gas, in a policing context, is meant to be an alternative to lethal force. Tear gas, in a military context, is meant as an enabler of lethal force - ie one makes you suffer so they don't have to kill you, the other makes you suffer because suffering makes it easier to kill you.
Also why the Russians have so much of it - it's legal for usage in civilian contexts.
See my other comment because i’m not retyping all that shit, but the main issue is the risk of escalation inherent when using chemical weapons regardless of lethality.
The only reason Russia is using CS on Ukrainian positions is because Ukraine doesn’t have Vx stockpiles, and Russia knows no one is going to give them Vx. The same goes for protestors. If cops knew that protestors might start chucking Vx over the line they’d be way more judicious in their use of CS.
Your other comment was very informative, but this insight increased my understanding of the situation even more.
Yea but thats not a war so its fine
sabaton - attack of the dead man getting louder and louder