Ukraine: Russian Forces Executed Surrendering Ukraine Soldiers

Human Rights Watch ^ | 2 May 2024 | Human Rights Watch

[MeganC]

(Kyiv, May 2, 2024) – Russian forces appear to have executed at least 15 Ukrainian soldiers as they attempted to surrender, and possibly six more who were surrendering or who had surrendered, since early December 2023, Human Rights Watch said today. These incidents should be investigated as war crimes.

“Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, its forces have committed many heinous war crimes,” said Belkis Wille, associate crisis and conflict director at Human Rights Watch. “The summary execution – or murder – of surrendering and injured Ukrainian soldiers, gunned down in cold blood, expressly forbidden under international humanitarian law, is also included in that shameful legacy.”

Human Rights Watch investigated three instances of the apparent summary execution of at least 12 Ukrainian soldiers by verifying and analyzing drone footage posted on social media on December 2 and December 27, and on February 25, 2024. In these cases, the soldiers demonstrated a clear intent to surrender and, since they were no longer taking part in hostilities, were considered hors de combat and not targetable under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war.

Human Rights Watch verified the location of two of the three incidents based on the footage, but due to the lack of geographic details in the videos, was unable to determine the exact location of the third. Human Rights Watch was unable to verify which party operated the drone that captured the footage in these cases.

Human Rights Watch investigated a fourth instance by analyzing another video clip posted on social media on February 19 showing two Russian soldiers executing three surrendering and unarmed Ukrainian soldiers. Although the account that posted the clip stated the location of the incident, Human Rights Watch has not been able to verify the location independently.

For the fifth incident, the investigation relied on an interview with a Ukrainian soldier, a video posted to a Telegram channel on February 16, and in-depth media coverage including interviews with family members of one of the victims. The information suggests that six soldiers were executed in the incident, though the circumstances were less clear.

In one of the five incidents, on February 25, verified drone footage shared widely online including on X (formerly known as Twitter) shows at least seven Ukrainian soldiers exiting a dugout among some trees between two fields, removing their body armor, at least one soldier removing their helmet, and all lying face down as five Russian soldiers aim their guns at them. The Russian soldiers are identifiable by distinctive red tape markings around the arms and legs. Three Russian soldiers then shoot toward the clearly surrendered Ukrainian soldiers from behind and both sides.

Six of the Ukrainian soldiers remain face down, visibly reacting to the impact of the shots, while one attempts to reenter the dugout but is shot before he is able to. The incident took place near Ivanivske village in the Donetska region. The location was first verified by EjShahid, a volunteer for GeoConfirmed, and subsequently confirmed by Human Rights Watch researchers.

(More at the link)

[Robert DeLong]

Had to read it you wouldn't need to ask the question. However, I will answer the question. It was the threat of Ukraine becoming a NATO member nation. Putin clearly stated in 2008 that Georgia & Ukraine were red lines as far as Putin was concerned regarding Russia's national security. He didn't mince words. He made his intentions quite clear. There was no need for us to poke the bear with NATO expansion into either of those nations. It accomplishes nothing. We had already placed nuclear weapons in Turkey, so it wasn't as if he didn't justification from keeping them from being able to set up nuclear weapons along Russia's border.

It was no different than when Nikita tried to put nuclear weapons in Cuba in the early 60s.

[Svartalfiar]

Ukraine becoming a member of NATO is not a threat to Russian security, unless Russia was planning to invade anyway. Telling the schoolyard bully you want to be friends with the other bully isn’t a valid excuse for him to beat you up.

If we do whatever Russia wants just because Putin makes some threats, what’s the point of having our own countries? Just because you warn the cops you’re gonna rob the bank, doesn’t make robbing the bank no longer a crime!

No different than Cuba? I don’t recall us annexing half the country only because we couldn’t successfully invade the other half.

[Robert DeLong]

Well, apparently you do not know where Gitmo is located then, or how it was obtained.

The United States took possession of Guantánamo Bay through the end of the Spanish-American War and the Platt Amendment. The Platt Amendment was initiated in 1903 and outlined seven conditions for the U.S. withdrawal from Cuba. The United States intervened at the end of the Spanish-American War, taking credit for Cuban independence from Spain.

Platt Amendment, rider appended to the U.S. Army appropriations bill of March 1901, stipulating the conditions for withdrawal of U.S. troops remaining in Cuba since the Spanish-American War and molding fundamental Cuban-U.S. relations until 1934. Formulated by the secretary of war, Elihu Root, the amendment was presented to the Senate by Sen. Orville H. Platt of Connecticut.

By its terms, Cuba would not transfer Cuban land to any power other than the United States, Cuba’s right to negotiate treaties was limited, rights to a naval base in Cuba (Guantánamo Bay) were ceded to the United States, U.S. intervention in Cuba “for the preservation of Cuban independence” was permitted, and a formal treaty detailing all the foregoing provisions was provided for. To end the U.S. occupation, Cuba incorporated the articles in its 1901 constitution. In 1902 the United States withdrew its troops, and Cuba became a republic. Although the United States intervened militarily in Cuba only twice, in 1906 and 1912, Cubans generally considered the amendment an infringement of their sovereignty. In 1934, as part of his Good Neighbor policy, Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt supported abrogation of the amendment’s provisions except for U.S. rights to the naval base under Article VII:

To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.

We are still there more than 120 years later.