Kremlin propaganda convinces troops they will be tortured if taken prisoner, says Ukrainian commander
Russia is afraid that Ukraine will treat their soldiers who are POW better than they treat their own soldiers. Better tell them to kill themselves otherwise they will realize how full of shit the Kremlin is.
exactly
“NEVER SURRENDER!!!” (so that you don’t all realize you can and absolutely should)
deleted by creator
Isn’t that standard procedure in pretty much every military?
No, it is not.
I’ve never heard of a military that allows surrender on personal initiative. Modern or ancient.
You’re gonna have to come up with some extraordinary evidence to back up that extraordinary claim.
The Geneva Conventions have entered the chat
and then realizing it is irrelevant, it backs away slowly
It literally dictates the rules of war, including how to treat POW.
How is that irrelevant?
The Canadian forces has a unit on rules of war. They’re very particular about it. Contrary to belief, they’re more than suggestions.
Because it says nothing about what POWs are required to do before being captured.
The Geneva convention would be relevant in this case if Ukrainian soldiers were killing Russian POWs.
Yeah. It needs a solid ‘I’ve never heard of’ level of evidence.
…you want me to prove a negative?
It would be very easy to, for example, find a single military doctrine that outlines lawful surrender on personal initiative. If that existed.
Have you heard of the teapot orbiting Jupiter?
Russian soldiers ‘blow themselves up’ to avoid capture
Isn’t that standard procedure in pretty much every military?
I’ve never heard of a military that allows surrender on personal initiative. Modern or ancient.
I’m trying to pinpoint exactly when and why the conversation shifted from “normalcy of suicide” to “military regulations”.
Because we are describing suicide in the context of avoiding capture. Which from a purely strategic perspective, is the correct course of action.
I recall an article from the first NK troop deployments where they interviewed a Ukrainian veteran, and he called the north koreans motivated and competent infantry. He specifically pointed out that they are very capable and very disciplined, and used their apparent willingness to commit suicide to avoid capture as evidence of said discipline.
Now if this article was talking about general suicide rates, then it would not have any relation to military doctrine.
And see: crediting your enemy with the discipline to commit suicide to avoid capture suggests to me that it is “remarkable”. One might even say “atypical”.
Does that same logic apply to marksmanship, training, and apparent endurance? Note that this article came out shortly after the speculation claiming the upcoming deployment from NK would be starving dudes with bamboo spears. Seemed to me more as a recognition of general competence.
Unfortunately, my attempts to find said article again have been stymied by a slew of recent articles talking about North Korea having an official suicide before capture policy. Would have been published mid-late 2024, a month or two after the original 50k deployment.
No I’m really not. I’m smarter than you.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/33/section/2/enacted?wrap=true&view=plain
A person subject to military law shall be guilty of an offence against this section if, without lawful excuse, he
(a)surrenders any place or thing to the enemy
Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy—
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;Yeah, I see that type of thing a lot.
What I don’t see very often is what exactly consistitutes a “lawful excuse” in the context of surrender, apart from direct order from superiors. So we go back to my original point: no surrender on personal initiative is allowed.
Which makes sense. Captured soldiers are a political liability. That’s why some militaries (Israel) go as far as to declare that captured friendlies should be killed.
I’m not sure where you are from but UK uses the system of common law. Rather than list every reason why x y z can be or cannot be done it sets rules that are interpreted by a judge or court. With the exception of statutory rules like speeding where there is no excuse and the rule is 50mph etc.
https://www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/blog/civil-law-vs-common-law.html
Okay. So, is there a common law ruling that you can point to which defines acceptable conditions for surrender on personal initiative? Otherwise, the distinction between common law and civil law is irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Lonsdale
He was forced to surrender his boat in World War II […] In 1946, he was court-martialed for the loss of the submarine and was honourably acquitted.
But every case can be different, that’s the whole point. A standard or rule is set and the circumstances of each event are evaluated. Later events can refer to earlier rulings.
Lol you’re just trolling.
