221
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 29 points 7 months ago

Oh look, another warcrime that the rest of the world will ignore. Just like it in the corner with the genocide.

[-] Numberone@startrek.website 18 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

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

[-] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Well I didn't know that. Good information.

[-] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 8 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

Your other comment was very informative, but this insight increased my understanding of the situation even more.

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago

Yep, teargas, which is illegal to use in war, is regularly used by US cops against its own citizens.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 4 points 7 months ago

Yea but thats not a war so its fine

[-] devilish666@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

sabaton - attack of the dead man getting louder and louder

this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
221 points (98.3% liked)

News

23361 readers
3210 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS