I suppose this is also why the Russian gov't had announced, last year, that esp. members of the 'Azov' troops would be treated like 'franc-tireurs' of old, i.e., like partisans. This means that these formations, which are *not* military outfits but are run through the Interior Ministry, i.e., 'paramilitaries', are not 'protected' by the Hague and Geneva Conventions (later superseded by the UN Charter). If captured, 'Azov' troops will be put on trial like, say, terrorists or criminals in Russia, which says a lot--for the Russian wouldn't have to do that.
Speaking of the Geneva and Hague Conventions, any non-military member--who's also uniformed and thus recognisable as such--who takes up arms against may be shot at the spot (or hanged or the like).
There's another harrowing parallel to WW1 and the wildly successful, if equally misleading, Anglo-American propaganda that posited the 'rape' and 'pillaging' of plucky little Belgium by invading 'hordes of Huns'. Yes, like any other occupying force, the German army encountered exactly that kind of civilian resistance referred to above; the German army did abide by the Hague Convention and summarily executed some of these 'franc-tireurs' to set an example.
Now, I do think that it is the natural right of any occupied people to resist invaders, but it's a risk to one's life and limbs. Yes, there also were atrocities committed by German troops in WW1, there's absolutely no doubt about it, but 'war is hell', eh?
Mind you, I'm not passing judgement, merely stating facts.
Resistance fighters are to operate under a chain of command, wearing recognisable uniforms and insignia, and follow the laws of war themselves if they are to be considered lawful combatants. They are in effect to operate asmuch as conventional forces as resources and circumstances permit - but uniforms/insignia and chain of command are abolutes here.
That's why the IDF is fully in its right when they shoot down armed palestinians - the long history of PLF/PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah operating as civilians among civilians, using civilian structures as cover, means they have made all palestinians legal targets for reprisal.
The law is obviously tailored to benefit the occupying force, but it is also to protect civilians from unlawful reprisal which become a necessity when resistance fighters wear plain clothes and hide among civilians.
So, if you don't want to turn your civilians into targets, don't use them as cover. Same thing with surrendered troops not picking up weapons and resuming the fight behind enemy lines, should the opportunity arise: it makes inhumane treatment of your fellow troops a necessity.
That's the general principle beind it all: don't use sneaky exploits that force the enemy to behave like a monster as a precaution. Or do I remember wrong? It's been many years since I studied those texts, and the legalese is so obviously from a bygone age of western supremacy, presupposing that any and all combatants adhere to western morals.
Today's (from Irak 1) wars are more and more a throwback to pre-Westphalian warfare.
I would hope that no one in the USG or military would be stupid enough to believe that it’s a good idea to send US advisers into this mess. The stakes are just too high, but you never know what the morons currently running things in DC will do......
I think it's more likely this guy is ex-173rd or he just thinks the patch is cool. Customizing your patches is trendy amongst the "tactical" crowd and I imagine that might bleed into military units with relaxed dress standards.
Given all the intelligence sharing, the high profile missile and drone strikes into Russia and the eastern area, and repeated reports of US and Britain advisors / CIA operatives working in Ukraine, it is clear that the US and Britain are in it up to their ears. Speculation on whether this soldier is US or not is a nice diversion while the other thousand or two people behind the scenes continue their work.
On the other hand, he may not actually be fighting, but instead looking for any documents that were missing from Joe's garage.......
Fair point about the diversion. I do think that there's quite a bunch of (technically ex-) NATO military and intelligence operatives in Ukraine.
If they were not formally inducted into the Ukrainian military, they would not receive any protection, such as it is, from the Russian military if captured.
Also, good one on the Biden documents. Muahahahaha.
I remember reading an article in Foreign Affairs all of which revolved around this subject - how US should participate in this war without "participating", including tricks like US soldiers quitting their formal jobs and then rehired in some other capacity so they can keep with their mantra of "we are not a party to this war".
Maybe, but remember: 'hiring' someone isn't exactly the same as 'induction' into a foreign military.
Speaking of 'participating' as a soldier (essentially of fortune) in another country's army, isn't that, kind of, 'illegal' and punishable under US law? (Whatever that's worth…)
Another point: wearing false insignia as a soldier during war is punishable by summary execution if I remember the Convention correctly.
The reason why such is treated so harshly should be obvious.
I suppose this is also why the Russian gov't had announced, last year, that esp. members of the 'Azov' troops would be treated like 'franc-tireurs' of old, i.e., like partisans. This means that these formations, which are *not* military outfits but are run through the Interior Ministry, i.e., 'paramilitaries', are not 'protected' by the Hague and Geneva Conventions (later superseded by the UN Charter). If captured, 'Azov' troops will be put on trial like, say, terrorists or criminals in Russia, which says a lot--for the Russian wouldn't have to do that.
Speaking of the Geneva and Hague Conventions, any non-military member--who's also uniformed and thus recognisable as such--who takes up arms against may be shot at the spot (or hanged or the like).
There's another harrowing parallel to WW1 and the wildly successful, if equally misleading, Anglo-American propaganda that posited the 'rape' and 'pillaging' of plucky little Belgium by invading 'hordes of Huns'. Yes, like any other occupying force, the German army encountered exactly that kind of civilian resistance referred to above; the German army did abide by the Hague Convention and summarily executed some of these 'franc-tireurs' to set an example.
Now, I do think that it is the natural right of any occupied people to resist invaders, but it's a risk to one's life and limbs. Yes, there also were atrocities committed by German troops in WW1, there's absolutely no doubt about it, but 'war is hell', eh?
Mind you, I'm not passing judgement, merely stating facts.
Resistance fighters are to operate under a chain of command, wearing recognisable uniforms and insignia, and follow the laws of war themselves if they are to be considered lawful combatants. They are in effect to operate asmuch as conventional forces as resources and circumstances permit - but uniforms/insignia and chain of command are abolutes here.
That's why the IDF is fully in its right when they shoot down armed palestinians - the long history of PLF/PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah operating as civilians among civilians, using civilian structures as cover, means they have made all palestinians legal targets for reprisal.
The law is obviously tailored to benefit the occupying force, but it is also to protect civilians from unlawful reprisal which become a necessity when resistance fighters wear plain clothes and hide among civilians.
So, if you don't want to turn your civilians into targets, don't use them as cover. Same thing with surrendered troops not picking up weapons and resuming the fight behind enemy lines, should the opportunity arise: it makes inhumane treatment of your fellow troops a necessity.
That's the general principle beind it all: don't use sneaky exploits that force the enemy to behave like a monster as a precaution. Or do I remember wrong? It's been many years since I studied those texts, and the legalese is so obviously from a bygone age of western supremacy, presupposing that any and all combatants adhere to western morals.
Today's (from Irak 1) wars are more and more a throwback to pre-Westphalian warfare.
I hope not.....
I would hope that no one in the USG or military would be stupid enough to believe that it’s a good idea to send US advisers into this mess. The stakes are just too high, but you never know what the morons currently running things in DC will do......
Maybe a volunteer who is 173rd Brigade veteran? There are former U.S. military vets serving in the UAF.
Perhaps.
Forgive my ignorance, but would such a veteran get to keep his uniform and unit insignia, in particular given the stakes involved?
I mean, there's a reason that, say, the French Foreign Legion, doesn't advertise the origins and backgrounds of its legionnaires…
I think it's more likely this guy is ex-173rd or he just thinks the patch is cool. Customizing your patches is trendy amongst the "tactical" crowd and I imagine that might bleed into military units with relaxed dress standards.
That was, in essence, the majority of comments in 'my' LinkedIn feed, too.
One might imagine, though, that the possible implications (massive escalation) would render it rather, well, 'unfortunate' to do so.
It might also be a propaganda stunt on part of the Ukraine to 'drag' the US (even more) fully into this quagmire.
Given all the intelligence sharing, the high profile missile and drone strikes into Russia and the eastern area, and repeated reports of US and Britain advisors / CIA operatives working in Ukraine, it is clear that the US and Britain are in it up to their ears. Speculation on whether this soldier is US or not is a nice diversion while the other thousand or two people behind the scenes continue their work.
On the other hand, he may not actually be fighting, but instead looking for any documents that were missing from Joe's garage.......
:-)
Fair point about the diversion. I do think that there's quite a bunch of (technically ex-) NATO military and intelligence operatives in Ukraine.
If they were not formally inducted into the Ukrainian military, they would not receive any protection, such as it is, from the Russian military if captured.
Also, good one on the Biden documents. Muahahahaha.
I remember reading an article in Foreign Affairs all of which revolved around this subject - how US should participate in this war without "participating", including tricks like US soldiers quitting their formal jobs and then rehired in some other capacity so they can keep with their mantra of "we are not a party to this war".
Maybe, but remember: 'hiring' someone isn't exactly the same as 'induction' into a foreign military.
Speaking of 'participating' as a soldier (essentially of fortune) in another country's army, isn't that, kind of, 'illegal' and punishable under US law? (Whatever that's worth…)
Resident pedo joe's handlers want a war
"Military advisors".
Just like in Vietnam.