Does the Filming of the Russian POWs Violate the Geneva Conventions?

I recently wrote a column on why I believe that the Russians are now committing flagrant war crimes. Ukraine is the victim of those crimes and the images from that country are truly sickening.  Vladimir Putin and his government now stands as not just a pariah among nations but criminal actors who have shattered the most basic principles of international law and the Law of War. In that context, it is difficult to raise questions about the response of Ukraine, which is facing annihilation at the hands of a tyrant. However, Ukraine is reportedly showing videotapes of Russian POWs. While it pales in comparison to what is being done by the Russians, the practice may violate Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions. Despite my strong and ongoing support for Ukraine in this struggle, it is important to flag such potential violations when they occur. It also has bearing on the media in using such images.

The Ukrainians are showing weeping Russian prisoners of war who denounce Russia and declare that they were used like ‘cannon fodder’ by Russian commanders. The video airing on the networks show “Security Service of Ukraine” across the top of the images.

As civil libertarians, we are often compelled to raise concerns despite our revulsion with the conduct or views of a party. These soldiers are combatants protected by the Geneva Conventions and other treaties. Ukrainian POWs are protected under the same status.

The issue of filming POWs has long been contrary to the Geneva Conventions.

Here is the relevant provision:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.


Text of the provision*

(1) Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

(2) Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

(3) Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

* Paragraph numbers have been added for ease of reference.

Likewise, the Fourth Geneva Convention, covering civilians, states:

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War art. 27, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516.

Obviously, these provisions do not expressly ban filming of POWs but protects them from acts of “intimidation and … insults and public curiosity.”

The International Red Cross and other international humanitarian groups have long condemned the filming for POWs for propaganda or public messaging.

“Being exposed to ‘public curiosity’ as a prisoner of war, even when such exposure is not accompanied by insulting remarks or actions, is humiliating in itself and therefore specifically prohibited. For the purposes of the present article, ‘public’ should be interpreted as referring to anyone who is not directly involved in handling the prisoners of war, including other members of the Detaining Power. Exposure to public curiosity can take many forms. The prohibition undoubtedly covers parading prisoners in public. Moreover, prisoners must not be exposed to humiliation when they leave their camp for work, are transferred to another facility or are being repatriated. In modern conflicts, the prohibition also covers, subject to the considerations discussed below, the disclosure of photographic and video images, recordings of interrogations or private conversations or personal correspondence or any other private data, irrespective of which public communication channel is used, including the internet. Although this is seemingly different from being marched through a hostile crowd, such disclosure could still be humiliating and jeopardize the safety of the prisoners’ families and of the prisoners themselves once they are released.”

During the Iraq War and other conflicts, the United States has objected to the filming of American POWs as a violation of Article 13.

There have been debates over the use of photos where the identity of POWs are obscured but that is not the case in the Ukrainian footage.

In ACLU v. Dep’t of Def., 543 F.3d 59, 90 (2d Cir. 2008), vacated on other grounds, 130 S. Ct. 777 (2009). the court allowed the release of Abu Ghraib photos of detainee abuse as an exception to these rules but only because the identity of the individuals was obscured.

It is not clear who is in possession or took the videotapes of these POWs. Many citizens are joining the front lines in this fight. However, as difficult as it is in this fluid battlefield, Ukraine is under an obligation to seek adherence to the conventions.

One answer cannot be that the Russians deserve it. The Conventions are only viable if they are applied evenly. If we apply the rules selectively, the Russians will claim the same exceptional status in their treatment of Ukrainian POWs.

There may be a claim that these POWs volunteered to make such statements. For example, the media may claim that it was given access to these soldiers who agreed to be interviewed. The Red Cross has always been leery of such consent claims when a combatant is being held. Moreover, one article suggests that the government was behind the display, noting “Ukraine on Wednesday invited the worried mothers of Russian troops captured on the battlefield to come and collect their sons.”

We need to know more about these circumstances, but these videotapes raise a credible concern over adherence to Article 13.


180 thoughts on “Does the Filming of the Russian POWs Violate the Geneva Conventions?”

  1. I hear lots of people claiming to stand with Ukraine, but I don’t see them standing with Ukraine.

  2. War is what Putin wants. Non-war is not what Putin wants. If he didn’t want a war with Ukraine, he wouldn’t have started one. Diplomacy won’t talk him out of it. If war is what he wants, then war is what he wants, and that is that. Talking is futile. Diplomacy cannot stop a tank. Only a bomb from the air can. Now you know what needs to be done. The more you delay causing death and destruction to the Russian soldiers, the more death and destruction will come to the Ukrainian civilians that you claim to stand with thousands of miles away in the comfort of your own homes.

    1. Aninny:

      “The more you delay causing death and destruction to the Russian soldiers, the more death and destruction will come to the Ukrainian civilians that you claim to stand with thousands of miles away in the comfort of your own homes.”
      You are a bloody psycho. You wanna start a world war over Ukraine and risk a nuclear exchange? Putin has signaled his intentions since 2008 up until last year that he would not tolerate a NATO missile platform on his southern border. No great power would. Think Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet you wanna emote over thinking and risk every brick stacked upon a brick since George Washington’s time to appease your childish sense of morality. This is survival we’re talking about and if you want a suicide mission contesting the great boogie man of the Left, have at it. Just steer clear of me and mine. You’re dangerous and infantile in your thinking. Ukraine is neither in our sphere of influence nor our national interests. Period.

      1. … the great boogie man of the Left….ahhh, I am confused. I thought leftists were communists in your dictionary. At least you are correct in not wanting war.

  3. Are torture programs legit under the Geneva Conventions Professor Turley? Asking for a friend.

  4. Migration is a tool of Russia, and before that, the USSR.

    Putin coordinated with Russians living in Ukraine to create a separatist movement. He used that movement as the excuse to seize the gem of Crimea. There is a similar Russian separatist movement in Moldova, which created a quasi-recognized breakaway state called Transnistria. Russian military have already begun staging in what has been predicted as a similar move to seize Transnistria, claiming that they wanted to be part of Russia.

    Move Russians in, organize them, stage revolt, and then seize the area, claiming that ethnic Russians should be part of Russia.

    Putin simultaneously strains the resources of outlying countries by using violence to drive mass migration of refugees.

    He’s playing a long game. I don’t know if he realizes that he’s mortal, and is planning on handing the reins of gradually rebuilding the USSR to a political heir, or if he thinks he’ll live forever, but his current expansion has been years in the making, and will continue over the course of years. Making Europe reliant upon Russian oil means they’ll sit on their hands while he conquers neighbors. It was a true stroke of mad genius for Putin to get Biden to okay his pipeline, while he vetoed America’s own, thus making the US more reliant upon Russian oil, as well.

    The question remains, however, if Putin organized his country’s finances so as to weather sanctions, or if he’s developed an infrastructure with China that will not rely upon Western Europe, North America, or SWIFT. The ruble is falling, and time will tell if it will rally. Has he planned for this, or did he become impatient and act too soon?

    Isolationism does not work. Merely ignoring Russia while it scoops up small countries, and their resources, will allow it to grow into a stronger enemy. A stronger…nuclear…enemy, with Ukraine’s rich uranium deposits.

    1. Today 2022-06-15: 1.00 US Dollar = 56.065349 Russian Ruble (
      I believe this answers your question/concern

  5. It was my understanding that the Geneva Convention prohibited putting POWs on public display, or coercing them to denounce their countries.

    However, reports have been coming in that Putin lied to his military, telling them they were liberating Ukraine, and would be welcomed with open arms. The Ukrainian ambassador read the last text between a Russian soldier and his mother, moments before he was killed in combat, before the United Nations:

    “Mama, I am in Ukraine. There is a real war raging here. I am afraid. We are bombing all of the cities together, even targeting civilians. We were told that they would welcome us and they are falling under our armoured vehicles, throwing themselves under the wheels and not allowing us to pass. They call us fascists. Mama this is so hard.”

    Some Russian soldiers have refused to fight, while others carry out orders.

    Is there not some way to share testimony from Russian soldiers that they were lied to, or object to these actions, without violating the Geneva Convention, or giving the impression it was compelled? Is the only way to share this testimony to rely upon soldiers who defect?

    I am curious to know if Russian POWs will be given the chance to defect.

      1. Anonymous:

        I do not know if they were given the opportunity to defect upon capture. In my personal opinion, I think a Russian POW should be given the chance to defect at any time before repatriation.

        But I also think that all these Russian athletes writing “no war” on their person should defect, too. Protesting is illegal in Russia. Even mild comments like “no war”, without laying any explicit blame on the Russian government, could lead to their arrest. While objecting to the war is a good thing, they live in a country without free speech, which is in the act of conquering a smaller neighbor. Is that the kind of country they wish to play for? While it may be difficult to defect when they have family in Russia, those who can, should do so.

    1. Who’s Govt propaganda shall we trust?

      Why is the US arming/aiding Ukraine NAZIS!!!!! Ph’in ahole Creeps.

      WAR Russia VS Ukraine

      Raw footage reports from the Russian invasion of Ukraine


      WoW! How many Illegal Bio-Chem labs did the Pentagon admit to having just in Ukraine earlier this week?


      Zelensky Caught Red-Handed Destroying Evidence Of Hunter Biden Biolab Network
      by Kelen McBreen
      June 15th 2022, 1:49 pm
      Ukrainian president knew to cover for his buddies in the US government

  6. “The Ukrainians are showing weeping Russian prisoners of war who denounce Russia and declare that they were used like ‘cannon fodder’ by Russian commanders. The video airing on the networks show “Security Service of Ukraine” across the top of the images.”
    If recent history is any guide, the first Russian troops in the theater are the least trained, equipped and the greenest troops. That’s what the vidoes show from the Ukraine vidoes of captured Russians. The crack units usually move in with mechanized armament once the shock troops in the first wave take teh casulaities. The 40 mile long column seems to bolster that battle plan. I expect quick work of the encircled cities of Kharkiv and Kyiv now that Black Sea port towns of Kherson and Mariupol have fallen. As for war crimes committed by Russians, I’m all ears having read nothing but blatant lies form Western press about everything from beauty queens at war to the “Ghost of Kyiv” which turned out to be more hope than hero. All I’ve seen are claims of Russian war crimes mostly centering around the rocket attack in Kharkiv’s Freedom Square where some 10 civilians died. By “war crimes” standards that’s jaywalking.

  7. It would be nice to imagine the terms of the Geneva convention were accepted, followed and enforced. The fact that these young men were videotaped explaining their disdain for this incursion well, I think that’s good. The fact that their families now know for sure they’re alive, I think that’s good. The fact that many Russians see these men explaining they were lied into combat well, that’s good for the effort to bare pressure on the Moscow Madman.

    You know what’s bad maybe the free world had the time to help the Ukrainian’s with material to minimize much of siege and wasted that time? Now all these “donations” of defensive weapons may never reach them in time or at all. Here’s another bad, the U.S. and it’s allies are still dependent on Russian oil.

    1. Granted my eye sight isn’t what it used to be but I didn’t find a key piece of pertinent information. Is Russia or is Russia not a signatory to that particular portion of the rules and procedures of the United Nations. Being a member is not the same as supporting as we have often seen citing the Socialist (sometimes called Democrats for unknown reasons) Party. At present without full factual disclosure I wonder if our current government might be preparing to use the absence of such a signature from the Present Russian Government or is it more like the one of thirty some years plus ago?”

  8. Can cyber attacks be considered attacks as far as Article 5 is concerned?

  9. It’s pretty clearly a violation, but it’s not a “grave breach” under Article 130 of the Convention, requiring criminal prosecution. On a more basic level, have the Russians admitted they have any prisoners of war? We know from the Ukrainians themselves that the 13 troops on Snake Island were captured, but why haven’t the Russians said that? It would have been to their advantage to counter an early piece of pro-Ukrainian propaganda. Will captured Ukrainians, civil and military, simply “disappear” without a trace? Where the Geneva Conventions are concerned let’s hold both sides accountable.

  10. War is a nasty terrible thing….and no amount of Paper with signatures is going to change it.

    The phots/video of Russians being held as Prisoner of War (POW) is not an issue when compared to the atrocities being committed by the Russian Attackers on the Civilians of Ukraine.

    That the Russian POW’s have been well treated and are being offered to their Parents works to ensure the POW’s remain healthy and well treated.

    I should think Professor Turley would have made an issue about the photos of dead Russian Soldiers laying in the snow….is that not a violation of some rule inscribed on a piece of paper?

    Think back to the way the Russians treated the Polish POW at Katyn where 40,000 Officers and other Poles of interest to the Russians were murdered by the NKVD….the fore runner to the KGB which Putin served in before coming into power.

  11. Sure, if Liberals do it, we give it a fair shake. No. What in the name of hey is this virus that has been placed into Liberals’ brains that makes them think so? I say this as a lifelong Independent voter from a family of very mixed political lineage. I have voted for both Dems and Republicans. If anybody thinks last night’s SOTU was anything but a lying word salad, or that what is happening in Ukraine is anything but an abject failure on the part of 21st century ‘liberals’, I just don’t know what to say. We didn’t need Russia’s oil under Trump, hate him and be unable to separate policy from personality all you like, and any idiot that thinks green energy runs or works without oil is either indoctrinated and 20 or abjectly stupid and uninformed (I was taught to learn and explore for myself, and come to my own conclusions).

    Is the worst thing that you folks can imagine happening to you honestly an unraveling of a narrative you have been spoon fed seemingly since birth? Why? Is your understanding of personal comfort really that flimsy and status quo? Pro tip: though there is certainly nuance, historically, in America, the Democrats and their forebears have seldom been the ‘good guys’, and there is no 1/1 comparison possible between the United States and other countries. Stop projecting and get real for the first time in your comfortable lives. My ancestors were the ones braving dysentery, small pox, starvation, or at worst murder just to travel across the continent in hopes of something better. Yours were the ones that had their slaves do it for them.

  12. Professor Turkey is quite right to highlight this. If these are in fact efforts to exploit the POW’s for propaganda purposes, it will do nothing but harm to
    the Ukrainian cause in the end. It will jeopardize Ukrainian aspirations of joining the West and western support. I can well understand why the Ukrainians would do this, but the long term harm outweighs the any short term benefit.

    1. “the long term harm outweighs the any short term benefit.”
      Not if the long term benefits negate the long term harm.

  13. Professor Turley, We narrowly escaped WW3 in 1962 when the Soviets put troops and missiles in Cuba. Today we have done the same to Russia on its border. We are on the wrong side of the issues today. It is we “who have shattered the most basic principles of international law and the Law of War”. I have no love for Putin. It is the USA which is the danger to mankind today.

    We had every opportunity to defuse the issues and prevent war by affirming that NATO would not expand into the Ukraine, that we would remove our missiles from eastern Europe and that NATO troops would back away from Russia’s border. We refused to even discuss those issues with the Russians. We have also withdrawn from 4 nuclear arms agreements with the Russians. It is little wonder that Putin declared the US was incapable of making and keeping agreements and that he was through being abused by us.

    Today we are a government and press of Curtis LeMays clamoring for war with nuclear armed Russia in its own front yard. We have no JFK to peer into the abyss and say “No” to Armageddon. Biden closed his SOTU speech last night with a war mongering neocon “Go get him”. That is conduct unbefitting a president and a clear and present danger to humanity.

    You are so good on so many issues it is surprising to me that you are so profoundly wrong on this. I encourage you to pause, to take a deep breath and to rethink your position.

    1. Agreed. So many of the grubby fingerprints all over this conflict match the dirty hands of individuals and agencies that are hiding behind and within the governments of the US and EU.

      It’s becoming clearer and clearer that in order to protect the world from rogue governments/government agencies like those in europe and america that ignited the current conflict, we need the same naturally occurring balance of powers among nations that the US Constitution creates within the branches of its federal government and between the sovereign states and the federal government.

      We need a strong Russia to check a rogue USA, a rogue China or a rogue EU
      as much as we need a strong USA to check governments within Russia, China, or the EU that have gone rogue.

      1. The US is now a “rogue government”? Who’s paying you to spread this lie? “We” don’t “need” Russia at all–much less a “strong Russia”. Russia has to be held in check, because Putin is just crazy enough to try to start another world war if he doesn’t get his way. This is how the last world war started: Hitler’s insatiable hunger for power at any cost and his anti-Semitism. Russia isn’t “strong”, either. It is a country that squanders intellectual talent and relies on the sale of natural resources, which will be exhausted eventually. Russia is run by a murderer, a former KGB officer who kills his critics by poisoning them. He lies to his people. His own troops didn’t know that they were being sent into Ukraine to murder innocent civilians, some of whom they may be related to. There’s no “conflict” here either: this is pure murder: war crimes committed as a means to intimidate the Ukrainian people and take away their sovereignty and right to determine their destiny. Russia has no right to dictate to NATO or Ukraine whether Ukraine joins NATO. NATO exists to check Russian aggression. It is vital to preventing another world war.

    2. Giving in to a blackmailer’s illegal demands never works, except to produce new demands. Putin had no basis in international law for these demands. The truth is NATO has been remarkably sensitive to the Russians. We did not establish permanent bases in the new Eastern NATO members precisely to satisfy Russian feelings. The only missiles sent there were defensive Patriot systems that didn’t threaten Russians unless they were entering NATO airspace, and we only sent them after it was clear the Russian were violating the INF treaty by developing new intermediate range nuclear missiles. Rudyard Kipling may have been a politically incorrect imperialist, but his poem “Dane-geld” states some eternal truths: “if once you have paid him the Dane-geld you never get rid of the Dane.”

      1. af jag retired @2:31

        The worst mistake you can make is to believe your own propaganda. You illustrate that well, thank you.

        We were prepared to start WW3 over Soviet forces and missiles in Cuba in 1962. The Russians have every reason to be just as intolerant of us on their border.

        Poppy Bush promised Gorbachev after the collapse of the USSR that NATO would not expand into eastern Europe. Clinton promptly broke that promise and expanded NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries. Duhbya compounded the deceit with even more NATO expansion east.

        Trying to dance on the head of a pin by claiming no permanent bases established in eastern European NATO members is most charitably willful denial of reality.

        The issue is missiles and their control systems. The AEGIS Ashore missile systems in Poland and Romania are more than just Patriots. They also control offensive missiles as well as defensive. We have refused to agree with Russia how to verify that we have not installed offensive missiles in eastern Europe. Our claimed rationale for installing the missiles was to defend against Iranian missiles not Russian. We bleated that we had no concerns about Russia, although you apparently did not get the message. The US withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. That may not have done much to increase the Russian’s confidence in our good intentions.

        You can take Curtis LeMay out of a blue suit, but you apparently can’t take Curtis LeMay out of some blue suiters.

    3. We had every opportunity to defuse the issues and prevent war by affirming that NATO would not expand into the Ukraine

      Who is this “we” you speak of Kimosabi?

      Aside that, nit. Who is going to enforce that promise from Russia, 20 years from now?

      Russia signed onto an agreement brokered by the Clinton administration, to not invade Ukraine, if Ukraine gave all the nukes they had in Nation, with the breakup of the USSR.

      But Ukraine surrendered all the nukes, by the urging of President Clinton, in return for freedom from Russia (actually Putin).

      1. iowan2 @3:14

        That “we” is the United States of America and its toadies in NATO. Russia has been trying since early last year to get the US to address the issues in its front yard that were imperative. We refused, most recently a couple of weeks ago, when we refused to even address them in response to Russia’s proposed agreement.

        On his return from the European Security Conference Zelensky explicitly stated that the 1994 Belgrade Memorandum, signed when the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, needed to be revisited and that he believed Ukraine could rearm with nukes. Putin specifically stated in his announcement of war that the Ukraine would never be allowed to become a nuclear power again. Ukraine trashed the no nuke agreement, not Russia.

        These things are clear if we pay attention and not let the anti Russian war hysteria drown all else out. I’m no fan of the Russians, but I’m even less of a fan of the neocon warmongering the US is frantically engaged in.

        1. . Ukraine trashed the no nuke agreement, not Russia.

          Ukraine gave up all the nukes to Russia. Ukraine has not become nuclear. Russia has invaded, violating the 1994 agreement. This triggering action is Russia.

    4. OMG: so Putin demands that NATO not expand into Ukraine, so that’s supposed to be some command with which others are bound to comply? Based on what? Because Putin doesn’t want NATO in near proximity to defend Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Poland or Lithuania when he decides to invade them, too? Don’t the Ukrainians have something to say about this? Doesn’t NATO and it’s members have a voice? Who the hell is Putin to threaten anyone over the choice of Ukraine to join NATO and NATO’s choice whether or not to admit Ukraine? The US is a NATO member, and therefore, obligated to defend its NATO allies. We need our missiles placed where they are to defend our allies in case they are needed. Why would the US “discuss” this with Russia, and who the hell is Russia to dictate to the US how it strategically plans to carry out its mission to defend NATO members should the need arise? Oh, so poor little Vlad feels that the US is “incapable of making and keeping agreements”–who breached first, Lefty 665–the US or Russia? And, why are you defending a savage murderer and liar who doesn’t even care about his own people?

      And, you actually want to accuse Biden of “conduct unbefitting a president” when Biden said “Go Get Him”? What about your orange hero praising Putin’s invasion as “smart”, “savvy” and “wonderful”? What about the Big Lie? What alt-right media source or even worse, is impelling you to publish such malarky? Putin and Trump are the “clear and present dangers” to humanity. You are so profoundly wrong, that I find it hard to believe that you aren’t a Russian operative or paid to put out such comments. Russia is so clearly in the wrong here. Putin has committed several acts of outright murder. He is a war criminal.

  14. Since when is that in keeping with Free Speech, Jonathan Turley?

    Please be consistent, hmmm?

  15. I have a more basic question: is this a war in the first place, thus triggering the Geneva Conventions? Does committing the criminal acts of unprovoked murder, assault and intimidation by persons wearing the uniform of and under the banner of a country, Russia in this case, constitute a war or is this conduct something else? Assuming it does qualify as a war, did the Ukrainian government film and release the images, or was that done by individuals with cell phones? Even if this is a “war”, and even if the Ukrainian government released the images, an expert opinion I read indicated that this would be the legal equivalent of a misdemeanor compared with Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine, which included targeting schools, kindergartens, apartment houses and civilians, which would equate to first-degree murder, in addition to violating not just the Geneva Conventions, but other treaties and international law. So, I’m not going to lose any sleep over images of captured Russians posted on the internet or elsewhere. And, IMHO, there are more serious questions Turley could address using his platform rather than attacking Ukraine for posting images of Russian soldiers.

    1. You not only miss the point, you question even publishing the article….how predictable.

    2. Natasha, of course this is a war. When the government of one country sends its army to invade another country, drops bombs, … that’s a war. Jeez. Putin may now qualify as a war criminal.

      That Russia has done much more than Ukraine that’s worth condemning doesn’t mean that we should be silent if Ukraine violates the Geneva Conventions. I often disagree with JT, but agree that “One answer cannot be that the Russians deserve it. The Conventions are only viable if they are applied evenly.” However, there’s a question about whether these videos are coming from the Ukrainian government (in violation of the GC) or private citizens in Ukraine (probably doesn’t violate the GC).

      That said, Russia is also acting in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, and given Turley’s choice to discuss the Geneva Conventions, he should be discussing Russia’s actions as well: Putin is dropping cluster bombs and vacuum bombs, both of which violate the GC.

      1. When does premeditated mass murder become war? When it’s done under the flag of a country and on the orders of a dictator? Ukraine has a right to self-determination, and refusing Putin’s demands about joining NATO is not an act of aggression, nor does justify Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and killing of civilians, including children and babies. We learned from WWII that failing to stand up to a dictator bent on genocide and hungry for power at any price is a fatal mistake, because they won’t stop until they are forced to surrender or are killed. Just as Hitler couldn’t care less about the welfare of his soldiers and sailors, the same is true of Putin. Hitler put out an order that his soldiers and sailors had to fight to the death, and if they didn’t, HE would have them killed instead of the allies.

  16. First of all. No one has verified any of these images. Many of them have been from old wars and the media is just a guilty. There is no, in my knowledge, any major media in Ukraine. And, how can they be believed anyway after Covid.

    1. Somewhere between two sides stories lies the truth. The reality is both sides do have cluster munitions. I questioned Zelensky’s handing out arms to civilians as creating Russia is targeting civilians stories. Try, a group of independent international researchers and journalists. Thery critique both sides.

      Does Ukraine have Neo-Nazis?

  17. If you think that’s bad — just wait for the photos of Russians throwing babies out of incubators. Only a fool would accept the word of one side unquestioningly. Did you ever stop for one minute to examine the background to this conflict? Or are you simply dancing to the tune of the Biden administration, which would never tell a lie, right? Doesn’t any of the war propaganda sound vaguely familiar, or has the 20-year interim since our own illegal, inhumane bombing and invasion of Iraq completely erased your memory?

    If the Western media would actually provide facts instead of propaganda, the American people might have something to base their opinions on. For example…why exactly did Russia attack Ukraine? After years of asking NATO for security guarantees, the final straw came on Feb. 19, 2022. Zelensky gave a saber-rattling speech at the Munich Security Conference (February 2022), and Moscow finally realized that Ukraine was fully onboard with NATO’s goal of using Ukraine as a launching pad for aggression against Russia. Before Zelensky’s speech, the presidents of both Ukraine and Russia were denying the US’s hype about a Russian invasion – Zelensky going as far as to tell Biden to stop the hysteria because it was costing Ukraine foreign investors. What changed on Feb. 19th was Zelensky’s speech threatening to ignore the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by Russia, the UK and the US, and reconsider Ukraine’s non-nuclear status. Crossing the nuclear red line was the final straw. Nazis with nukes on Russia’s border was never going to happen.

    1. Maybe Zelensky had a case since Russia had previously invaded and occupied the Crimea in 2014 and then also sent “mercenaries” and “volunteers” into the 2 breakaway provinces also in 2014 thereby nullifying the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.. The past is prologue, like serial killers, the previous acts of rogue nations tell you what they will do next. Please tell me the last time that NATO invaded Russia or the USSR.

      1. Remember the US reaction to missiles in Cuba?

        Crimea was not invaded and occupied. Russia has a naval base there since 1783. Are coup governments legal? Not according to Obama when Egypt overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood government.

        Crimea was semi-autonomous and had their own Parliament. Yes influenced by Russia, but the people voted in a referendum where an overwhelming majority voted to rejoin Russia. No surprise as the vast majority are ethnic Russians.

        1. Crimea was occupied by Russian military. The naval base is in Sevastopol, a separate administrative unit.
          In any case, the occupation was a direct violation of the Budapest MoU, of which Russia was a guarateeing signatory. In other words, V.V. Putin broke Russia’s word of honor.

        2. Viewing all this through the lens of war crimes seems to me pretty useless. The important questions now are how this can be resolved and what is best calculated to bring that about.

          Unless there is regime change in Russia, Ukraine will be destroyed. I doubt the means at our disposal that we are willing to deploy would result in a coup d’etat in Russia.

          So, Ukraine will be destroyed. The question is how long will Ukrainian cities be embattled and how many Ukrainians will be killed or displaced before a settlement is reached. In my view the sooner the better.

          Will the means we are willing to deploy against Russia cause them to agree to a settlement acceptable to us? Not in my judgment.

          Rather than pressuring Russia further to change its objectives we should now be pressuring Zelensky to accept the best deal he can get, perhaps leaving Ukraine as a demilitarised rump state in the west. The beautiful Ukrainian dream of remaining intact and joining the EU and NATO has now been shattered. Physical survival is what they now need to pursue.

          I still fail to understand what Biden expected to accomplish. From the fall he knew that, absent a settlement ending the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, Putin would invade. He knew that sanctions on energy flows would not be imposed, and he said a couple of days ago that no one in his administration expected the available remaining sanctions to work. He knew that China was supporting Russia, making sanctions even less likely to affect Putin’s calculus. And he ruled out the involvement of US or NATO armed forces.

          Yet he refused to negotiate about the eastward expansion of NATO. From this I conclude that he preferred an invasion. I cannot understand why. And now we see the consequences of that preference.

          1. Unless there is regime change in Russia — Daniel

            You and whose army? Don’t be that fool.

            1. That’s what I said. It’s unlikely to happen with the means we have at our disposal and are willing to deploy.

    2. “Only a fool would accept the word of one side unquestioningly,” Giocorn said, then copy/pasted pro- Russian talking points unquestioningly. That’s what “sounds familiar”- you’re parroting the same BS talking points I’ve seen on Twitter, Facebook, and every news website with a comment section. You didn’t even bother to correct the subject-verb agreement error and misspelling from wherever you copy/pasted this. You’re halfway there- it is of course important to read western media carefully and with an eye towards bias. But you must also do the same to eastern, especially Russian media, given especially that almost all outlets are owned by the Russian state and therefore definitionally produce nothing but propaganda. If you keep posting derivative pro-Russian nonsense on the internet everybody’s going to think you’re too unsophisticated to know when you’re being lied to- that you’re a hopeless clown, a silly fresh-off-the-turnip-truck rube(le), and I’d just hate that for you.

    3. Ukraine is not “Nazis with nukes”, or any other kind of Nazi.

      Ukraine fought against the Nazis in WWII, Zelensky is Jewish, and lost relatives to the Holocaust.

      There is a persistent national mistrust of Russia due to the Holodomor, the Ukrainian holocaust perpetuated by the Soviets. The majority of Ukrainians seek to identify with Western Europe, not the deprivations of the former USSR. They sought entry into NATO. As NATO was formed as an alliance to provide security against the Soviet Union, Putin took issue with Ukraine seeking membership. Ukraine is either with Russia, like Belarus, or it’s against Russia. Putin will not allow Ukraine to make alliances against Russia. Hence the invasion.

      Russia and China are both so powerful that they can do anything, short of invading a NATO country, without incurring military opposition. This is why Taiwan is doomed.

  18. We should avoid a rush to judgment, altho that is something generally not in play, given the proliferation of cell phones, etc.

Comments are closed.