news from Russo-Ukraine Front

[Cult Icon]

left wing, Z-Oblast

[ljadw]

Proof that the Geneva Convention forbade destruction of dams ?

"Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Article 56 - Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces

1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population."
<>
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-t ... article-56

An addition from 1977 to a Convention of 1949 !
And this article is that vague that it can not be used as an argument against attacks on dams ,dykes ..
The article said that these attacks are forbidden IF they may cause the release of dangerous forces and severe losses among the civilian population .
What are dangerous forces ? And who will decide what dangerous forces are ?
And, how can one know before the attack that dangerous forces can /will be released ?
The same for ''severe losses among the civilian population ''
What are severe losses ? Raw figure ? A percentage ?
Is 10 % of a population of 1000 people a severe loss or 3000 victims of a population of 100000 people ?
Who will decide what severe losses are ?
And, how can one know before the attack that he will result in severe losses ?
Last point : why was the addition agreed only after the Korean and Indochinese Wars where the US air force attacked dykes and dams ,and why not in 1949 ?
Is this not also an other example of hypocrisy ? What we did is not a war crime, but,if you will do it,it is a war crime .

[ljadw]

https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1666385132582756352

"Germany under new Defense Minister is really doing EVERYTHING imaginable to provide weapons to Ukraine.

What a difference to a year ago!! Well, done Germany.

F15QA
@NasserF15QA
·
Jun 5
All 15 Gepards have been resold to Germany the Systems were originally purchased for 31 million USD and Have been resold for 64 million USD in other words we got a deal."




These 15 Gepards probably don't need much in the way of refurbishment so should be at the front reasonably soon. A lot sooner than the 60 Gepards recently purchased from Jordan by the US.

What is ''reasonably '' and ,when will they be active at the front ? In a reasonably soon time ?
The Abrams would also be reasonably soon operating at the front .

[ljadw]

An Ukrainian officer told CNN that Russian soldiers were dragged by the flood after the destruction of the dam.
If this is true ,would that not be a counter-argument against the claims that the Russians were responsible for the destruction of the dam ?

[dgfred]

Yeah... they seem to care a lot about their troops.

[Cult Icon]

https://t.me/s/voin_dv

Collection of footage from various Russian units shooting up Ukrainian vehicles.

It is unclear whether the fighting over the past week is the main blow of the counteroffensive or a lot of strong recon-in force, attempting to secure favorable positions and finding gaps in the defense. These waves of vehicles and manpower got shot up.

In last year's Kherson operation they expended enormous quantities (for them) of Soviet and Western munitions for weeks (targeting Russian GLOC) and launched wave after wave of scattered attacks for more weeks until the Russian GLOCs got so compromised that their defenses on the west bank start to crumble.

So far there is no weeks of interdiction operations with artillery and ballistic missiles & the associated tidal wave of Ukrainian footage of strikes, this suggests that they do not have an abundance of ammunition like the West media/Ukrainian political top claims.

[Cult Icon]

Colonel Markus Reisner "Bakhmut has fallen"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvJgRrpkaaU&t=183s

Chechen forces footage show them equipped with Chinese armored cars.

[wooley12]

An Ukrainian officer told CNN that Russian soldiers were dragged by the flood after the destruction of the dam.
If this is true ,would that not be a counter-argument against the claims that the Russians were responsible for the destruction of the dam ?

Soldiers dying from friendly fire is a constant in any war. Sometimes by accident. Sometimes, like all casualties of war, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I can't see where the loss of their own troops would rule out Russian as the destroyer.

[Cult Icon]

The side that has most to gain at the current moment would be the one who destroyed the Dam. It is still unclear which side would benefit more. It depends on how badly Russian front line positions get flooded.

The threat of flooding from the Ukrainian destruction of the Dam (US Defense industry think tank talking head Mike Kofman also promoted it) was one of the reasons Surovikin withdrew from West Bank Kherson. This would have worsened the already tenuous situation with Russian GLOCs.

[Cult Icon]

https://vk.com/milinfolive?w=wall-123538639_3665366

https://vk.com/milinfolive?w=wall-123538639_3668457

Gallery of RDK battledress, NATO equipment and neo-nazi paraphernalia

https://vk.com/milinfolive?w=wall-123538639_3668424

"Chinese Tiger armored vehicles from Shaanxi Baoji Special Vehicles Manufacturing are in service with the Office of the Federal Service of the National Guard of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic."

[Terry Duncan]

Can people please keep all posts on this topic respectful to both sides in the conflict and to each other as required by the site rules.

Terry