It doesn't surprise me in the least that the guy who reached out to Ryan and thought this engagement might include some violations of the rules of armed combat. People who have never been in the military or have but have never experienced the traumas of combat often can't truly empathize with those returning war veterens suffering with PTSD because they don't have any experiences to relate to those of the veterans which can even allow their imaginations to estimate anywhere close to what that level of intensity, fear, anxiety, or savagery would be like to go through. That's not saying that sans empathy, these people don't appreciate, support, or actively assist war veterans suffering with PTSD, they just can't effectively place themselves in the shoes of the veterans because they have no basis to relate.
In my experience, it seems that most people who have not experienced intense direct action combat will always grossly underestimate the magnitudes of brutality and the unique type of sensory and emotional overload it causes. In most cases all they have to draw upon is what they've seen in movies or video games, which even when depicted somewhat realistically, can never, and should never replicate the experiences in ways to induce in their audiences precisely how it feels to be that trench, nor what it feels like to be back home after being in the trench.
Seeing these engagements from the drone's eye view like this further separates the viewer from the trauma, and makes it easy to Monday Morning Quarterback the soldiers actions because he coulda, shoulda, woulda criticisms. However, in reality these critiques aren't realistic or rational, fail to understand or take into account the phenomenon of "the fog of war", and again, are based on sensationalized entertainment.
This isn't saying that non combat veterans SHOULDN'T try and understand what the combat veterans went through, or shouldn't ask these types of questions if they are comfortable with what they are seeing. Just because someone lacks the traumatic life experiences needed to truly empathize with returning combat veterans, doesn't mean in any way they can't show compassion for them. Asking questions like this are simply one way of doing this, and I truly appreciate Ryan addressing this question in such a respectful, pragmatic, and neutral way. It's very easy to just ignore or patronize the individual posing question as "you obviously don't understand....".
Well done sir, you're doing a service to both combat veterans and non combat veterans, it's incredibly rare to find this type of analysis at the such a granular level. YOU have earned a virtual impact award HIGH FIVE!
Honestly, I can understand why people are upset, but when did we forget that this is a war? People die in wars, and its 1000% more likely to happen to you when you're retreating, as it's always been throughout history.
Ok, objectively good defense against an offensive thrust by twice the manpower of the defenders. The defenders used good suppression fires, employed hand grenades with good results. The last grenade throw was text book quality. It was in the trench and severely disruptive to the assault element. The assault element attempted to disengage, but did so maintaining a posture of combat. They do not appear to surrender. The retreating assault element attempted to bring weapons to bear on the defense element at the point of verbal challenge. This lead to their death. I do not fault the defender in their actions.
Ukraine has experts reviewing footage before posting it. Obviously, they would not post a war crime.
Come on, whether Bahkmut has enough civilians in it to rule out white phospherous was way, way more interesting than this. It amazes me that everyone "just knows" there are no civilians in Bahkmut any longer. I mean, a month ago estimates had it at 6,000. You are telling me there aren't at least 1/6 that number stuck in the city due to infirmity? No humanitarian corridor was ever opened, nor was Ukraine ever given a chance to evacuate. I am almost certain there are a bunch of old people that Putin just lit up with incendiaries, and I think we are downplaying it because of our own decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were better justified than this.
Anyway, if you found this a better topic, fair enough.
This footage was awesome. Good job to the Ukrainians soldiers. Those russkiys got it good.
The shoot don't shoot decision being made while your enemy is/was shooting at you has to have a lot of leeway. Am 1000% pro Ukrainian, and I would make this statement for Russian soldiers also.
PS... Russians best time to surrender is BEFORE the firefight. Not after you lost it.
Ryan, thanks for reminding us what war really is like. It's not pixelated or pauseable to go pee. I know nothing, but the soldier at the end looked pretty vulnerable as he rushes in to finish the fight. It is edited, giving us the dramatic middle and the bitter end. Sadly, it's only one of many that has happened, and will happen this summer, with different "plot" twists.
It feels weird to click a "heart" for this video. More like a thumbs up, I "agree" with you.
It might also be a good idea to get some input from a lawyer.
War crimes contain two main elements:
1. A contextual element: “the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international/non-international armed conflict”;
2. A mental element: intent and knowledge both with regards to the individual act and the contextual element.
Point 2 is the one I'm looking at. It would be almost impossible to determine the intent of the soldier shooting was anything other than ending an active fire fight.
As in to get a conviction you'd have to prove intent to kill someone who is out of combat. There's more to actually getting a conviction then looking at x event and saying yes or no.
A well executed Battle Drill 7A! Close the distance, Frag-out, assault through trench. COIN warfare and non uniformed combatants have created a "tactical pause" due to restrictive ROE/RUF that requires focus on PID to engage a threat during a humanitarian mission. Land Warfare with an established uniformed enemy requires audacity and total focused violence to quickly take down an enemy force and/or establish a foothold or breach. ZFG!
It looks like #2 was hit at 1:24. From the way they folded up it knocked them out or killed them. There is a missing piece / edit at 1:47. From the end it does seem like the same trench because you can see the nook that #2 jumped into to avoid the grenade.
It seems to me like anyone looking at this and thinking it's a war crime thinks that killing anyone in combat is a war crime. Sorry, last-second attempts to surrender because you've lost and you're about to eat a bullet are not the type of surrender attempts the laws of war are contemplating. When you're assaulting through a group of enemy soldiers who were shooting at you fifteen seconds ago, you're not going to, are not expected to, are not required to, and SHOULD NOT double-check each one to see if he's attempting a last-minute surrender before you take him down. That's nonsense. No elaborate deliberation is expected or necessary in such a situation.
Holding anyone responsible for attacking a surrendering enemy solider is subject to the question of whether it was or should have been objectively clear to a reasonable person that the target was surrendering.
"A soldier fifty meters from an enemy defensive position in the midst of an infantry assault by his unit could not throw down his weapon and raise his arms (as if to indicate his desire to surrender) and reasonably expect that the defending unit will be able to accept and accomplish his surrender while resisting the ongoing assault by his unit."
"In order to make a person hors de combat, the surrender must be (1) genuine; (2) clear and unconditional; and (3) under circumstances where it is feasible for the opposing party to accept the surrender."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that the guy who reached out to Ryan and thought this engagement might include some violations of the rules of armed combat. People who have never been in the military or have but have never experienced the traumas of combat often can't truly empathize with those returning war veterens suffering with PTSD because they don't have any experiences to relate to those of the veterans which can even allow their imaginations to estimate anywhere close to what that level of intensity, fear, anxiety, or savagery would be like to go through. That's not saying that sans empathy, these people don't appreciate, support, or actively assist war veterans suffering with PTSD, they just can't effectively place themselves in the shoes of the veterans because they have no basis to relate.
In my experience, it seems that most people who have not experienced intense direct action combat will always grossly underestimate the magnitudes of brutality and the unique type of sensory and emotional overload it causes. In most cases all they have to draw upon is what they've seen in movies or video games, which even when depicted somewhat realistically, can never, and should never replicate the experiences in ways to induce in their audiences precisely how it feels to be that trench, nor what it feels like to be back home after being in the trench.
Seeing these engagements from the drone's eye view like this further separates the viewer from the trauma, and makes it easy to Monday Morning Quarterback the soldiers actions because he coulda, shoulda, woulda criticisms. However, in reality these critiques aren't realistic or rational, fail to understand or take into account the phenomenon of "the fog of war", and again, are based on sensationalized entertainment.
This isn't saying that non combat veterans SHOULDN'T try and understand what the combat veterans went through, or shouldn't ask these types of questions if they are comfortable with what they are seeing. Just because someone lacks the traumatic life experiences needed to truly empathize with returning combat veterans, doesn't mean in any way they can't show compassion for them. Asking questions like this are simply one way of doing this, and I truly appreciate Ryan addressing this question in such a respectful, pragmatic, and neutral way. It's very easy to just ignore or patronize the individual posing question as "you obviously don't understand....".
Well done sir, you're doing a service to both combat veterans and non combat veterans, it's incredibly rare to find this type of analysis at the such a granular level. YOU have earned a virtual impact award HIGH FIVE!
Honestly, I can understand why people are upset, but when did we forget that this is a war? People die in wars, and its 1000% more likely to happen to you when you're retreating, as it's always been throughout history.
Ok, objectively good defense against an offensive thrust by twice the manpower of the defenders. The defenders used good suppression fires, employed hand grenades with good results. The last grenade throw was text book quality. It was in the trench and severely disruptive to the assault element. The assault element attempted to disengage, but did so maintaining a posture of combat. They do not appear to surrender. The retreating assault element attempted to bring weapons to bear on the defense element at the point of verbal challenge. This lead to their death. I do not fault the defender in their actions.
Ukraine has experts reviewing footage before posting it. Obviously, they would not post a war crime.
Come on, whether Bahkmut has enough civilians in it to rule out white phospherous was way, way more interesting than this. It amazes me that everyone "just knows" there are no civilians in Bahkmut any longer. I mean, a month ago estimates had it at 6,000. You are telling me there aren't at least 1/6 that number stuck in the city due to infirmity? No humanitarian corridor was ever opened, nor was Ukraine ever given a chance to evacuate. I am almost certain there are a bunch of old people that Putin just lit up with incendiaries, and I think we are downplaying it because of our own decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were better justified than this.
Anyway, if you found this a better topic, fair enough.
This footage was awesome. Good job to the Ukrainians soldiers. Those russkiys got it good.
The shoot don't shoot decision being made while your enemy is/was shooting at you has to have a lot of leeway. Am 1000% pro Ukrainian, and I would make this statement for Russian soldiers also.
PS... Russians best time to surrender is BEFORE the firefight. Not after you lost it.
Soldier no 2 was clearly shot in the head at 1:24
Ryan, thanks for reminding us what war really is like. It's not pixelated or pauseable to go pee. I know nothing, but the soldier at the end looked pretty vulnerable as he rushes in to finish the fight. It is edited, giving us the dramatic middle and the bitter end. Sadly, it's only one of many that has happened, and will happen this summer, with different "plot" twists.
It feels weird to click a "heart" for this video. More like a thumbs up, I "agree" with you.
It might also be a good idea to get some input from a lawyer.
War crimes contain two main elements:
1. A contextual element: “the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international/non-international armed conflict”;
2. A mental element: intent and knowledge both with regards to the individual act and the contextual element.
Point 2 is the one I'm looking at. It would be almost impossible to determine the intent of the soldier shooting was anything other than ending an active fire fight.
As in to get a conviction you'd have to prove intent to kill someone who is out of combat. There's more to actually getting a conviction then looking at x event and saying yes or no.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
A well executed Battle Drill 7A! Close the distance, Frag-out, assault through trench. COIN warfare and non uniformed combatants have created a "tactical pause" due to restrictive ROE/RUF that requires focus on PID to engage a threat during a humanitarian mission. Land Warfare with an established uniformed enemy requires audacity and total focused violence to quickly take down an enemy force and/or establish a foothold or breach. ZFG!
It looks like #2 was hit at 1:24. From the way they folded up it knocked them out or killed them. There is a missing piece / edit at 1:47. From the end it does seem like the same trench because you can see the nook that #2 jumped into to avoid the grenade.
War is ugly, you cannot apply your usual morals in these life and death scenarios.
FASCINATING article about the use of drones to accept surrenders in Ukraine: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-practical-challenges-surrender-drones/
It seems to me like anyone looking at this and thinking it's a war crime thinks that killing anyone in combat is a war crime. Sorry, last-second attempts to surrender because you've lost and you're about to eat a bullet are not the type of surrender attempts the laws of war are contemplating. When you're assaulting through a group of enemy soldiers who were shooting at you fifteen seconds ago, you're not going to, are not expected to, are not required to, and SHOULD NOT double-check each one to see if he's attempting a last-minute surrender before you take him down. That's nonsense. No elaborate deliberation is expected or necessary in such a situation.
Holding anyone responsible for attacking a surrendering enemy solider is subject to the question of whether it was or should have been objectively clear to a reasonable person that the target was surrendering.
"A soldier fifty meters from an enemy defensive position in the midst of an infantry assault by his unit could not throw down his weapon and raise his arms (as if to indicate his desire to surrender) and reasonably expect that the defending unit will be able to accept and accomplish his surrender while resisting the ongoing assault by his unit."
That's from The definitive guide to this, for US purposes: the DOD Law of War Manual https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190
see section 5.9.3, which begins:
"In order to make a person hors de combat, the surrender must be (1) genuine; (2) clear and unconditional; and (3) under circumstances where it is feasible for the opposing party to accept the surrender."
Football field analogy is wrong. 10 meters ~ 10 yards = a first down, not a whole field.
Amazing aggression to success for outnumbered Ukrainians. Superb grenade throw.
Guy #2 was shot in the head before the Ukraine attacker advanced, he was already dead. And 10m is not the distance between goal lines, that's 100m! :D