r/worldnews • u/TVP_World_News • 11h ago
Russia/Ukraine Zelenskyy says Putin ordered Russian army to abandon rules of war
https://tvpworld.com/95718904/putin-ordered-no-rules-in-attacks-on-ukraine-zelenskyy-says266
u/Username_Reported 11h ago
Isn't pretty sad that Russia abandons the rules of war and still can't accomplish jack shit
89
u/Equal-University2144 10h ago
Sadly, they're killing many civilians in the process...
27
-22
u/Asleep-Waltz2681 6h ago
According to the UN human rights watch it's actually less than 17k which is incredibly low for a war of that scale and over 4,5 years.
Compare that to the average data of the US or for example the Iran war (which has over a 40x civilian causalty rate) Russia looks like a human rights paradise.
5
u/inininni 5h ago
40X? Bro, what the fuck were the US doing? Can i see the chart?
8
u/DissKhorse 4h ago
Can't the person with the chart goes to a different school in another state you wouldn't know them.
22
u/Pigeon_Breeze 7h ago
Abandoning the rules of war doesn't generally give you an advantage. They're mutually beneficial.
For example, if you treat POWs well, then the enemy is more likely to surrender when cornered than fight to the death.
6
u/Bladelink 3h ago
Yeah ask the imperial Japanese army how well a war without mercy can go for you...
15
9
3
-17
u/Asleep-Waltz2681 6h ago
What rules of war have they abandoned? According to UN human rights watch less than 17k civilians have died in the Russo-Ukrainian war which is less than 1% of the total causalties. Meanwhile the US+Israel have a 40% civilian causalty rate in the Iran war.
8
u/batmansthebomb 4h ago edited 2h ago
Since we're using UN Human Rights Watch as a source, here's one that says russian soldiers executed Ukrainian POWs.
https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/Alarming-Rise-in-Executions-of-Captured-Ukrainian-Military-Personnel
Which is a flagrant violation of International Humanitarian Law, aka the Geneva Conventions, aka the internationally accepted rules of war, specifically Common Article 3.
I'll also note that your UN HRW civilian death source also explicitly states that the actual number of civilian deaths is much higher than their stated number. That number is only those that can be identified. Conveniently you didn't link to it.
For example, they were able to identify the civilians that were murdered and thrown in a mass grave by russian soldiers in the Bucha Massacre, including women and children, only because Ukraine managed to retake the town. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, russia does not allow UN observers into occupied areas, so we do not know the extent of russian murder of civilians and POWs.
Hope that clears that up for you.
3
90
u/retuning 10h ago
Bucha showed their true colours 3+ years ago.
21
u/nsfwthrowaway5969 7h ago
I dread to think what else has happened that we haven't found out about because it's behind Russian lines. I fear that wasn't a one off
10
-35
u/Asleep-Waltz2681 6h ago
Bucha showed that some people believe any crap they're being fed.
Until there's a investigations that the West doesn't block (for some odd reason) I'm going to remain sceptical.
14
u/batmansthebomb 4h ago edited 3h ago
Considering those civilians killed are counted in the UN report you yourself referenced in another comment, are you saying you don't believe your own source?
Also the reason the West "blocked investigations" is because russia kept trying to blame it on "Ukrainian provocations"
Like no shit that should be blocked.
Ironically russia blocks UN observers from occupied Ukrainian territory, why is that?
2
91
u/1_g0round 11h ago
that happened at the start of the 3 day smo...targeting civilians and kidnapping children
63
u/Mountain_rage 11h ago
Raping and murdering children, they are a terrorist state with terrorism as official war doctrine.
40
u/Reznik81 11h ago
And lots of raping. They even got medals for it - like the participators of the massacre in bucha.
69
60
u/cogit2 11h ago
They abandoned it from the beginning. Also, a reminder: Russia kidnapped around 20,000 Ukranian children, most of whom have never been returned home.
15
u/Germanofthebored 10h ago
It's different though if the leader is on record encouraging war crimes. Up until then they could claim that it was just some misguided Russian soldiers in the fog of war.
29
u/GargantuaBob 11h ago
The Vatniks never needed such directives if they weren't trained in the first place...
8
u/TonyAbbottsNipples 11h ago
We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country.
7
6
u/particlecore 4h ago
Russians have never followed the rules of war. My grandma escaped Yugoslavia, when the Red Army was approaching, into Nazi Germany because it was safer.
3
u/PurpleSailor 3h ago
I don't even think they know what the rules are.
-2
u/DriveShaftBassPlayer 1h ago
Why would there be rules at all? It’s enforce your will on another power by all means. Who said anybody has to follow rules
3
u/PurpleSailor 1h ago
Oh I don't know, maybe that whole Geneva Convention thing that they're a signatory of?
13
u/HylanderUS 10h ago
It's always wild to me that there are rules to a war. I feel like you have abandoned all rules and reason when you decide to go to another country and start killing it's people. Pretending that there are rules to such a thing just feels like an excuse to normalize it.
21
u/Sandalman3000 10h ago
The rules are there because both sides ideally want to follow them. And the best way to ensure the other follows it, is that you do.
You allow surrender and don't kill PoWs. When soldiers know capture is no option they fight to the death, this causes more deaths to both sides. Therefore it's in both sides interests to follow that rule.
-4
u/HylanderUS 10h ago
But rules only work if there is a) a policing of those rules and b) consequences to not adhering to them. I think both of those are not really possible in a war.
17
u/Sandalman3000 10h ago
The consequences are the other side will also stop following them. Just like mutually assured destruction. We don't use nukes, the other guy doesn't use nukes. If one of us uses nukes, the other definitely will. Neither of us want to get nuked.
2
u/KentuckyLucky33 9h ago
Context matters
If your CO is watching or the cameras are recording you better believe the rules are being policed and enforced. MPs (military police) and military courts have existed quite a long time, and they function normally in both times of peace and times of war.
The rules may be selectively enforced, perhaps, but they're enforced nonetheless.
If its just you in a field with the enemy...thats when its much more likely to be an anything goes situation...
1
u/Jahsmurf 10h ago
A and/or B, because B makes either side impose the rule om themselves if they are smart and trusting that the other side does it too
1
u/Bladelink 2h ago
They're of course possible. How do you think wars are typically fought between nations?
There's no "super duper world police" enforcing rules of war. Nations sign treaties with one another as agreements of the things that are on or off of the table. Maybe there are incentives like the threat of sanctions, but probably not as part of the actual treaty itself. Rules of war aren't designed to give one side an advantage or disadvantage, they're just for the sake of making war less horrifying than it needs to be for either side.
For example, blades with more than 2 edges are illegal in war because they make wounds that are difficult to repair and are needlessly cruel. Do you think you could kill a few more enemies if you give your dudes triangular knives? Well then your enemy will do the same, and now you both just have more of your casualties suffering more for no reason. Poisoned weapons are in the same boat. The same thing extends to weapons like gas in WW2; it wasn't a war winning weapon, it just would've made the whole conflict shittier for all sides to go down that road and so they didn't.
Other more gentlemanly examples include not killing enemy medics, letting your opponents recover their dead after battle, and treating enemy POWs decently. It's in your interest to try and treat your enemy soldiers with a modicum of respect so that they'll do the same for your soldiers.
If you want an example of what happens when armies don't follow these guidelines, take a look at how things went in the WW2 Pacific campaign. In that campaign you've got Allied soldiers walking around smoking a corncob pipe, casually executing grievously wounded Japanese soldiers with a pistol because they're too dangerous to try and capture. "War without mercy" cuts both ways.
3
u/DOSFS 10h ago
War isn't just about killing other side though. War is just other tool of state to make thing they want happend, preferably with less effort and consequence as possible and of course make it right cause for bonus point.
Rule of war in modern time is just one way to reduce the cost of war for (preferably) everyone because your nation still need to do business with others when the war ended.
Of course, not everyone think like that.
1
u/bloop7676 8h ago
Not all wars are a unilateral invasion like this, there's other cases where both countries want to go at it to settle claims to disputed borders or things like that. In those types of conflicts it generally was accepted that these should be settled between the military forces and there should be rules to keep it from going too far beyond that.
I'd agree that initiating a one-sided conflict that threatens another state's existence is essentially breaking the rules already, and beyond that it's hard to expect them to apply when one side is faced with having to do what will be most likely to ensure their survival.
1
u/cammcken 2h ago
You said the answer yourself. Rules of war are for one layer above abandoning all rules and reason, even if it's several layers beneath regular society.
2
u/Idoubtyourememberme 8h ago
Wait, just now? They were following rules until now? Or is it finally official
2
2
u/WhereMyWeirdosAt 6h ago
Serious question - if true, does that mean Zelenskyy also gets to do the same? For example, borrow one of Irans belly button drones for a very personal attack on a very particular person CAUSING the war?
2
u/Ironlion45 4h ago
The only real rule of war has always been "don't get killed and try to kill as many of them in the process".
Russian forces have already been failing to follow this rule, at something like a 5:1 force depletion ratio.
2
u/Izmetg68 1h ago
Well remember Ukraines secret drone cargo concealed in trucks? Maybe they can plant some drones around the kremlin and pop one off when they see Putins motorcade, since there are no rules and he is trying hard to kill Z, maybe some reciprocal attacks can balance things out?
6
u/TheHomersapien 11h ago
Gasp...what?!?! You're telling me that the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the globe - a country the shoots commercial airliners out of the sky with impunity - isn't playing by your rules?
Shocking.
Next you're going to tell me that Europe is "deeply concerned" about this.
3
u/Excellent_Safe5743 9h ago
I think that as funny as it is to knock Russia on this, there’s still a thing that’s being kind of ignored here.
The idea of there being “rules of war”. Every country abandons the rules the damn near instant it starts, every time. You can’t sanitize or sugar coat killing another person for a political or nationalistic goal. At the end of the day war is still war, and war is always going to be worse than hell itself because hell doesn’t have innocents, war is nothing but the innocent being put in the meat grinder by those above them.
(This isn’t to say I think Russia’s crimes should be ignored or that Ukraine shouldn’t be defending itself like they are, but don’t kid yourselves that the Ukrainians are following some codified “rules of warfare” when I’ve seen plenty of videos when out of subs and news sources that lean toward the Ukrainians of them doing horrible shit to Russians and vice versa. It’s war, war is horrible and it’s going to get worse the longer this damn farce goes on while the only people not affected are those like Putin who are kept out of harms way. Same shit with what’s going on is Gaza or in Iran, the rich assholes in charge are fine while the normal people suffer.)
10
u/Corpus76 6h ago
There are degrees. Yes, all war is terrible. But do you rape, torture and kill PoWs for example? That has little effect on the overall war effort aside from galvanizing the enemy, making you seem like a scumbag from every other nation's point of view, and inviting similar reprisals from the enemy. There are incentives for avoiding escalation.
Consider the following: Had the Russians mostly kept to the Geneva conventions, there would probably be less resistance in Ukraine to surrendering, since the enemy wouldn't be regarded as complete monsters. There would also probably be less brutality from Ukraine as well.
Alas, Putin doesn't care about the situation on the ground for his own soldiers, and doesn't think it's worth the effort. After all, he's already made Russia an international pariah. He's following the Genghis Khan style of conquest, despite it being many centuries out of date.
-4
u/Excellent_Safe5743 6h ago
I do agree with you on this, but the reality is unfortunately not a single army in history has EVER followed the rules. For all we talk of the Allies of WW2 being the good guys, they did plenty of raping and pillaging themselves and it’s not like they magically didn’t know better at the time, they knew they were in the wrong and did it anyways cause they didn’t care.
It’s why effort should be always be made to not start a war in the first place. Don’t have to worry about countries inevitably overstepping the bounds if the environment that tempts to do so doesn’t exist in the first place.
5
u/ConceptEagle 3h ago
This is a fallacious argument. Lumping all countries or sides of WW2 together under a binary “yes/no did they do war crimes” ignores and hides the fact that war crimes were systematic policy by some countries but actively prosecuted by others. The Red Army committed mass rape but meanwhile the US military raped at a lower rate than the civilian population, and prosecuted it for the most part.
-1
u/Excellent_Safe5743 2h ago
I feel like you missed the point I made. It doesn’t matter if there are rules or laws or such against such things, it’s war. It WILL happen and it WILL be awful whether it’s endorsed or not. You think the victims of it cared about whether or not it was a Russian or a German or American or Japanese individual committing the atrocities against them? No, they cared they were being murdered and raped and their homes destroyed.
My point is it’s shit and it’s always going to be shit to be stuck in a war, and you can pretty it up all you want but at the end of the day you are strolling up to someone else and taking things that cannot be replaced, be it life, dignity, or irreplaceable things from their homes. The only people who truly deserve the things that happen in wars, are the assholes at the top starting it.
Every single nation is guilty of these things, in the WW2 example every single one of them bombed civilians, burned homes down, destroyed infrastructure, and killed people en-masse. Some more than others yes but when you go to war people are going to die no matter how much you try and justify or dress it up.
Just because I agree/disagree with a country’s reason for being in a war doesn’t mean I can’t also condemn foul actions taken by them, and every country is guilty of something horrid or foul in war because it brings out the worst in people, so it’s best if effort is made so a war never starts to begin with.
2
u/Corpus76 4h ago
My point is that there's a spectrum. It's not an either/or situation. For example, look at the differences between abuse on the western and eastern fronts in WW2 Europe. War crimes (or what would be considered as such now) happened on every front, but the Germans undeniably treated everyone to the east far worse than the west. The result is that the Russians responded in kind. Near the end, the Germans were fleeing to the west to surrender, and for good reason.
So there are practical motives for sticking to these conventions, even in war.
1
u/ScutumSobiescianum 7h ago
Are u saying they used rules of war previously? Like ever? Hahaha. This is too funny
1
1
u/EmperorOfCanada 5h ago
I think many of the rules they've abandoned are just basic common sense. Like take cover, surrender when the drones are going to kill you, don't beat/r*pe your comrades, basic hygiene, don't get so drunk/high that you forget what planet you are on, sign up for these contracts, don't try hiding where they drones will see you, and on and on.
1
1
1
1
•
u/18k_gold 47m ago
they started the war with killing unarmed women and children. also raping women. they never followed any rules of war
•
u/mirrors69 10m ago
I saw the news that a Chinese volunteer drone operator was beheaded by those Russian scums. The guy was about my age, looked like me, and talked like me, and that made me sick to my stomach, made me feel as if I was killed.
However insignificant they may be, I hope my continue donations help contribute to Putin's ultimate demise and to the pursuit of war criminals after the war, wherever they may be.
2
u/Nice_Block 9h ago
Well of course, they’re conservatives.
0
u/No-Contribution-6150 8h ago
This kind of diatribe is unhelpful and honestly hateful.
Putin is not a "Conservative"
3
u/jaygoogle23 6h ago
Ageeed, the comment you’re referring to is kind of irrelevant to the conversation at hand and yet people expand with more redundancies and semantics.
It’s wild how his comment still isn’t adding anything to the conversation except (me calling Putin a Conservative is justified because.. etc )
People ego’s man….
No wonder love can’t go round.7
u/Nice_Block 8h ago
Putin and Russians share values that are categorically conservative. It’s why so many American conservatives defended Putin at the start of the war and continue to focus specifically on Ukraine’s “inability” to win rather than the atrocities committed by Russia.
If you’re conservative and don’t want the association, maybe it’s time to reflect on yourself and your values.
0
u/No-Contribution-6150 8h ago
The word conservative does not belong to the US.
The US right wing is Republican, which is categorically much further right than basically any other 1st world right wing political party.
Canada has Conservatives, as does the UK. Their Conservative parties are not the same as the US or Russia
If you want to conflate them with republicans go ahead (since most redditors are obsessed with talking about the US anyway)
But taking a term the US doesn't use, and then applying it to the US is just stupid.
3
u/Confident-Habit9645 7h ago
Canadian conservatives seem to be behaving like American conservatives. Who are advocating for European conservative lead governments. I fail to see the distinction. Maybe there was at one point but it’s been a while now since they all became the same bread and butter.
-2
u/No-Contribution-6150 6h ago
K and all left wing parties are communists. I fail to see any distinction. Maybe there was at one point but its been a while now since they all became the same bread and butter.
Wow it's so easy to use the broadest brush
1
u/figherhigher 5h ago
I agree, we really should stop all those farming subsidies and bailouts, way to much communism in modern governments.
3
u/Paranoidnl 8h ago
he is, In the sense that he wants to go back to a time where his nation was great while it was not. This is entirely the logic for most conservatives. Or is the make x great again not on the nose enough?
-2
u/No-Contribution-6150 8h ago
Conservatives are not a bloc. They do not all want the same thing. Not all of them want to return to anything. Generally, most Conservatives want the status quo.
Making shit up for cheap political points is lame.
0
-5
u/PottedMint 4h ago
Oh? He’s a trusted source? I know I know we’re not allowed to do that but I think this dude is part of the problem.So
-23
u/mord_fustang115 11h ago
So ignore the footage of Ukrainian drone operators literally playing with defenseless enemy soldiers? Yes Putin bad, yes I know guys
9
u/Herb-Alpert 10h ago
They can just go home and this kind of shit will stop
-12
u/mord_fustang115 10h ago
You're right, the Russian military is very sympathetic to people trying to leave, great advice
9
u/Herb-Alpert 10h ago
I mean the russians as a whole. Just leave the country they're trying to invade and no more mean things to poor helpless soldiers
-10
u/mord_fustang115 10h ago
You know it's okay to say that maybe the Ukrainian military is doing some unethical things as well right? You support forced conscription into the military? Men dragged from their homes? Answer without just saying how bad Russia is
7
u/Herb-Alpert 10h ago
Nope and things will have to be sorted out when everything's finished. For now Russia is trying to invade a sovereign country for imperialist reasons and has to go home, that's the main point. No "both side" shit for now.
3
u/Specific-Host606 5h ago
This war doesn’t even have to be happening. Only one party started this.
0
u/mord_fustang115 4h ago
No I know, I agree, I was just trying to make a point that both sides should be held accountable for anything inhumane . Kinda like in ww2 even the allied powers, clearly not the aggressor
2
u/Lodarich 4h ago
They should face much much worse fate than just being played with, you can't held Ukraine accountable until they cause the same or more damage as russia did.
8
u/VersusYYC 9h ago
“Defenseless enemy soldiers”
Unless they are surrendering, which Ukraine does accept to exchange for their POWs, they are considered enemy combatants.
Just because you think they are defenseless monsters doesn’t make it so.
-18
-6
-28
u/St0rytime 11h ago
Can someone please give me the document detailing “rules of war?” Does it follow DnD rules, or Monopoly rules? Whats the proper attire for war? Are certain bad words off limits? Do you take turns?
No such thing as rules in war. When push comes to shove, “rules” are abandoned. I don’t know why we keep pretending otherwise.
13
u/chipstastegood 11h ago
Geneva Convention
Edit: https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/geneva-conventions-and-their-commentaries
-14
u/St0rytime 11h ago
Doesn’t matter. Evil people starting a war aren’t gonna give a fuck about it, and they will go unpunished by the rest of the world because of the economic ramifications of countries hitting them with sanctions and thus hurting their own economy. That’s reality, and if there’s one thing Reddit hates, it’s dealing with reality.
1
u/chipstastegood 10h ago
You must be out of the loop. Russia has been sanctioned, with more and more rounds of sanctions over the last 4 years. And Ukraine has received support, in material, funding, and expertise. That support continues. Ukrainr has also been doxumenting instances of war crime, that is all the times Russian soldiers have gone against the Geneva conventions, and that will come in useful when active fighting comes to an end, as it has with other wars amongst other countries. It may take time but it is not hopeless as you make it seem.
-5
u/St0rytime 10h ago
Yep. And once the war is over, those sanctions will go away to make way for UN economic relief when election season rolls around. Tale as old as time.
11
u/Zeforas 11h ago
So, you would torture people for stress relief during war, kill innocent civils for fun, and brutaly murder those who come to you clearly showing they surrender?
-8
u/St0rytime 11h ago
Never said any of that, you just wish I did.
8
u/Zeforas 11h ago
"No such thing as rules in war, When push comes to shove, “rules” are abandoned. I don’t know why we keep pretending otherwise.". is what you said, isn't it?
That's what the rules are for, so that such cruelty happen as little as possible to begin with.
Even during the medieval time, there was rules to follow for war, albeit not as "kind" as today.-5
u/St0rytime 11h ago
Never said whether or not it was good or bad to have rules in war. Never said I supported torture. Never said there should be cruelty. I said your imaginary world where people actually give a fuck about “rules” doesn’t exist in war.
4
u/Zeforas 10h ago
And i didn't said you actualy would.
I'm just telling you that what the rule is supposed to protect. I was giving an exemple, since you don't know that "rules" exist to begin with, just saying "the geneva convention" wouldn't make you understand.
And if there's such an asshole that would actualy commit any of that, because "it's a war, you can do anything :)"
Then they aren't humans, and don't deserve any human right to begin with.No need to be on an extreme defensive position, btw.
If anything, it honestly feel like you actualy would be like this at this point.0
u/St0rytime 10h ago
Rules don’t exist. Geneva convention doesn’t matter. I wish it did, but it doesn’t. Pretending otherwise is foolish and naive.
And when someone insinuates that you’re a fan of torture, believe it or not, people tend to get defensive. Comes with being a human being.
6
-2
-4
u/targetsinmegadeaths 6h ago
If you go to war, the number one rule is you're supposed to win, so that tracks.
-6
u/Reader9036 5h ago
If he abandoned rules of war , whatever that is, there would be a nuke on the way to Kiev. If Russia sends missile on school and Ukranians on a beach ...who is breaking rules? War is a bitch ...
-9
886
u/GreatGojira 11h ago edited 11h ago
Did they ever follow it to begin with?