Selenskyj: Operation bei Kursk Sicherheitsmaßnahme
Der ukrainische Präsident Wolodymyr Selenskyj hat die Offensive seiner Truppen über die Grenzen hinweg in die westrussische Region Kursk als Sicherheitsmaßnahme bezeichnet. Die bisher eroberten Gebiete dort seien Regionen, aus denen Russlands Streitkräfte die ostukrainische Region Sumy wiederholt angegriffen hätten. Allein seit Anfang Juni seien dort rund 2.100 Angriffe registriert worden.“Deshalb sind unsere Operationen eine reine Sicherheitsfrage für die Ukraine, um die Grenze vom russischen Militär zu befreien”, sagte Selenskyj in seiner allabendlichen Videoansprache. Kursk werde zum Symbol vom Anfang und Ende des russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin, sagte Selenskyj mit Blick auf die Katastrophe beim Untergang des modernsten russischen Atom-U-Boots “Kursk”, das im August 2000 mit 118 Besatzungsmitgliedern an Bord gesunken war. “Vor 24 Jahren gab es die Kursk-Katastrophe, die den symbolischen Beginn seiner Herrschaft darstellte; jetzt sehen wir das Ende davon - und es ist wieder Kursk.”
Selenskyj unterstrich einmal mehr, wie wichtig die von ihm erhoffte Erlaubnis zum Einsatz der vom Westen gelieferten Langstreckenwaffen gegen Ziele in Russland sei. „Wir brauchen entsprechende Genehmigungen unserer Partner für den Einsatz von Langstreckenwaffen“, betonte Selenskyj.
src: click
Also die verlotterten verwichsten Drecksschweine beim Standard die das lieber nicht prüfen.
„Es ist nur fair, die russischen Terroristen dort zu vernichten, wo sie sind, wo sie ihre Angriffe starten - russische Militärflugplätze, russische Logistik.“ Russland müsse gezwungen werden, Frieden zu schließen, wenn Kremlchef Putin so erpicht darauf sei, weiterzukämpfen.
src: click
Sie haben noch keinen Logistikknoten erreicht.
Und der Flughafen war nen Oblast weiter. Und sie hatten die means, und die Reichweite den aus der Ukraine anzugreifen.
Selbst die UN will den Völkerrechtsbruch verschweigen.
Anna Sawerthal vor einer Minute
Uno besorgt über Zivilisten nach Ukraine-Offensive in RusslandDas UN-Menschenrechtsbüro ist besorgt über die möglichen Auswirkungen der jüngsten militärischen Entwicklungen im Krieg zwischen Russland und der Ukraine. So beantwortete ein Sprecher des Büros eine Frage zum Angriff der Ukraine auf die Region Kursk. “Wo immer eine Seite militärische Operationen durchführt, muss der Schutz von Zivilisten und zivilen Objekten in Übereinstimmung mit dem humanitären Völkerrecht oberste Priorität haben”, sagte der Sprecher bei einem Briefing am Dienstag.
Der Uno liegen unbestätigte Berichte über vier getötete Zivilisten sowie einen verletzten Kriegsberichterstatter und eine verletzte Sanitäterin vor. Es konnte nicht festgestellt werden, unter welchen Umständen die Personen getötet wurden.
src: click
Man könnte ja im Völkerrecht nachschlagen…
An attack against an area or locality without it being militarily necessary to do so would constitute a violation of the prohibition on destroying the property of an adversary, unless required by imperative military necessity (see Rule 50).
A locality loses its protection from attack when it ceases to fulfil the required conditions. According to Article 59(3) of Additional Protocol I, the presence of persons afforded special protection and of police forces retained for the sole purpose of maintaining law and order is not contrary to these conditions.[24]
src: click
Basis for the war crimes listed above
These violations of customary international law are listed as grave breaches in Additional Protocol I and as war crimes in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.[41] The wording varies slightly between these two instruments, but in essence they are the same violations as indicated in the Elements of Crimes for the International Criminal Court.
(i) Making the civilian population or individual civilians, not taking a direct part in hostilities, the object of attack. In addition to the practice mentioned above, there are numerous examples of national legislation which make it a criminal offence to direct attacks against civilians, including the legislation of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.[42] References to more practice can be found in the commentary to Rule 1.
(ii) Launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. In addition to the practice mentioned above, numerous States have adopted legislation making it an offence to carry out an attack which violates the principle of proportionality.[43] References to more practice can be found in the commentary to Rule 14.
The definition of the war crime “launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” follows more closely the wording found in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.[44] The word “overall” is not contained in Articles 51 and 85 of Additional Protocol I, nor in the substantive rule of customary international law (see Rule 14). The purpose of this addition in the Statute of the International Criminal Court appears to be to indicate that a particular target can have an important military advantage that can be felt over a lengthy period of time and affect military action in areas other than the vicinity of the target itself. As this meaning is included in the existing wording of Additional Protocol I and the substantive rule of customary international law, the inclusion of the word “overall” does not add an extra element.[45]
(iii) making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of attack. In addition to the practice referred to above, it is an offence to attack non-defended localities under the legislation of numerous States.[46] References to more practice can be found in the commentary to Rule 37.
While “making demilitarized zones the object of attack” is a grave breach of Additional Protocol I, it is not mentioned as such in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Nevertheless, attacks against demilitarized zones are an offence under the legislation of numerous States.[47] In addition, such attacks would arguably constitute the war crime of “making civilian objects, that is, objects that are not military objectives, the object of attack” or “making the civilian population or individual civilians, not taking a direct part in hostilities, the object of attack” contained in the Statute.[48][…]
Serious nature of the violation
A deductive analysis of the actual list of war crimes found in various treaties and other international instruments, as well as in national legislation and case-law, shows that violations are in practice treated as serious, and therefore as war crimes, if they endanger protected persons or objects or if they breach important values.
(i) The conduct endangers protected persons or objects. The majority of war crimes involve death, injury, destruction or unlawful taking of property. However, not all acts necessarily have to result in actual damage to persons or objects in order to amount to war crimes. This became evident when the Elements of Crimes for the International Criminal Court were being drafted. It was decided, for example, that it was enough to launch an attack on civilians or civilian objects, even if something unexpectedly prevented the attack from causing death or serious injury. This could be the case of an attack launched against the civilian population or individual civilians, even though, owing to the failure of the weapon system, the intended target was not hit. The same is the case for subjecting a protected person to medical experiments – actual injury is not required for the act to amount to a war crime; it is enough to endanger the life or health of the person through such an act.[7]
src: click
Does IHL protect civilians leaving, or being evacuated from, a besieged area?
In all circumstances, IHL provides strong protections to civilians leaving, or being evacuated from, a besieged area.
From a practical perspective, safe evacuations are best organized when the parties to the conflict agree on the necessary procedures. In the absence of such an agreement, both parties remain obliged to take all feasible precautions to avoid causing incidental harm to civilians fleeing during hostilities.
In case of displacement, regardless of whether civilians flee or are evacuated from a besieged area, all possible measures must be taken to ensure that the civilians in question are received under satisfactory conditions of shelter, hygiene, health, safety (including from sexual and gender based violence) and nutrition and that members of the same family are not separated.
The besieging party may decide to screen displaced persons for security reasons, such as finding out whether members of the besieged forces intermingled with the civilians leaving the besieged area. Screening and other security measures undertaken by the besieging party must be conducted with full respect for IHL and international human rights law, particularly regarding humane treatment, living conditions and relevant procedural safeguards in cases of detention, and the prohibition against collective punishment.
src: click
Die sollen wahrscheinlich alle zum Atomkraftwerk Kursk, oder?
Und falls hier noch ein Wichser auf die Idee kommt, der ukrainische Angriff sei nicht völkerrechtswidrig gewesen:
Is the besieging party required to allow civilians to leave a besieged area?
Yes. Civilians must not be trapped in sieges, and both parties must allow civilians to leave the besieged area.
The Geneva Conventions contain essential, but limited, provisions on the evacuation (including by sea) of specific categories persons at specific risk, including wounded and sick, as well as certain civilians like persons with disabilities, older persons, children or pregnant women.
More broadly, today a besieging party may not force civilians to remain against their will in the besieged area.
IHL rules apply to the conduct of hostilities during sieges, in particular the principles and rules of distinction, proportionality and precautions. The implementation of several rules stemming from the principle of precautions requires both parties to allow civilians to leave the besieged area to escape hostilities whenever feasible. In particular, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population in all military operations, and all feasible precautions must be taken, notably in the choice of means and methods of warfare, to avoid or minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. In a besieged area where hostilities are taking place, and in view of the risk that this poses to them, one obvious precautionary measure is to evacuate civilians, or at least allow them to leave. Parties must also give effective advance warnings of attacks that may affect the civilian population, the purpose of which is precisely to enable civilians to take measures to protect themselves.
src: click
Boah wie GERN haben unsere HURENMEDIEN Aufmacher der Brennenden Dörfer gezeigt! IMAX Größe, hinter der Moderatorin.
Oder falls irgend ein verficktes GROTESKES ARSCHLOCH auf die Idee kommt, die könnten ja in die Ukraine fliehen:
(iv) Other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during a non-international armed conflict (continued):
• ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict and not required for the security of the civilians involved or imperative military necessity;
src: click
Ich wünsch den 1000 Arschlöchern ja noch viel Spass in den zwei Besetzen Dörfern und der einen besetzen Kleinstadt, nachdem die Russen die Evakuierung organisieren durften…
Wichser.
Und wieviel Sicherheit das dem verwichsten Drecksselenskyj nicht doch gebracht hat!
Das Dorf das bisher noch nicht evakuiert wurde, lag 5km von Russland entfernt, oder wie Selensky vorgestern ankündigen würde 2100 Drohnen Artillerie und Mörserangriffe auf Sumy, auch wenn Mörser nur eine Reichweite von 3 Kilometern haben…
Ich hätte ja gerne dass er das vorm internationalen Strafgerichtshof nochmal wiederhohlt.
Sie wissen schon, 17 Tote in Sumi im Jahresschnitt durch russische Angriffe. 32 Verkehrstote. Statistisch ein Drohnentoter durch Drohnen aus Kursk. Und dann erst die Menschen die aus der Entfernung auf Mörserfeuer starren.
Letzter Satz der Korrespondentin: “Sumy region has been shelled hundreds of times this month only by russian forces”.
Geil! 2100 Attacken laut Selenskyj in 66 Tagen. Mörserreichweite zu kurz. Nur knapp 134 Attacken auf https://liveuamap.com/ verzeichnet. Kein Drohnen Toter in den letzten drei Monaten in Sumy.
Aber alleine im Letzten Monate HUNDERTE ATTACKEN auf Sumy Region.
Da bricht schon fast die Mathematik. Ein Monat hat statistisch sagen wir 30 Tage. (2100/66)*30 = 955!
Hunderte alleine letztes Monat! Wo https://liveuamap.com doch in drei Monaten nur 134 Attacken verzeichnet hat! Und da sind die Doppelmeldungen noch nicht rausgeerechnet.
Zum Glück hat sich Selenskyj ja zur Evakuierung entschieden.
Jetzt, wo er die Bilder braucht! Damits nicht völkerrechtswidrig war.
