Gasping for air from a trench in eastern Ukraine, an infantryman was ready for the worst when a suffocating white smoke spread into his position.

A Russian drone had just dropped a gas grenade into the trench, an internationally banned practice in warfare used to suffocate Ukrainian soldiers hiding inside. Forced out in the open, the Ukrainians immediately became vulnerable targets for Russian drones and artillery.

. . .

Russia has increasingly deployed chemical agents in its grand offensive to occupy the last cities in the Donbas region under Ukrainian control. The suffocation tactic is to take out entrenched personnel and dampen the morale of Ukrainian soldiers who – severely outmanned and outgunned – have been withdrawing village by village in the east for nearly a year.

MBFC
Archive

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s Russia. It’d be easier finding a “legal” needle in the haystack of war crimes.

  • Olap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    3 months ago

    Gas in WW1 changed the battlefield for about 6 weeks whilst they scrambled for gas masks, but after this it didn’t have the effect either side thought it would. A stupid distraction that will earn Putin and his generals a trip to the Hague for sure

    • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’ll never see the Hague, the whole argument that Putin and Xi are having is that laws should be enforced by strength of arms, and what’re you gonna do about it?!?!

      History never sounds pretty when it rhymes.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      A gas mask wouldn’t work for this though, right? If it suffocates by displacing oxygen then you’d need an SCBA, not just a gas mask. That’s a lot more kit to supply and carry around.

      • Olap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The thing about air: there’s a lot of it. Not many gases take that long to settle/dissipate. And a gas mask is pretty effective at filtering. I do imagine worst case scenario in the heaviest bombardment is a brief evacuation of current line of defense only, as this is what happened back in the somme. It was far more effective vs artillery: artillery regiments weren’t equipped as well and thus they were denied counter battery fire for enough time to allow front lines to cross no mans land. Which were backed up by creeping barrages, which I haven’t read much out in Ukraine yet

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Partially. The article is pretty thorough, and covers many angles. I suggest reading it if you haven’t.

        It doesn’t cover the part about displacing oxygen, but I don’t think there are chemical agents that do that.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Lots an lots of any gas will, but then again so would water. It’s mostly an issue in confined spaces.

          If you see someone lying next to a container of liquid nitrogen, don’t follow them in.

    • prole
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Did they have gas masks for the horses? (Honest question. I guess I could look it up but… Meh)

  • Kit
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 months ago

    Is that title extremely confusing, or just me? I’m suffering from a concussion and was told to watch for signs of confusion.

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    Later when the same thing is done back on them they will express their outrage that underhanded tactics like they do are used against them.

    • Doom@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’ll be because someone shot their drone down or launched their armament back too. Or just the wind will carry it at their own

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Ah, so just tear gas. That’s paradoxically both more banned and less provocative than, like, Sarin.

    If they did actual chemical weapons, it’s time for the next historical event. The US has apparently laid out what happens next in painstaking detail.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago
    Kyiv Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Kyiv Independent:

    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Ukraine
    Wikipedia about this source

    Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:

    MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
    Wikipedia about this source

    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/kyiv-independent-bias/
    https://kyivindependent.com/silent-killer-russia-boosts-grinding-donbas-advance-with-chemical-warfare/

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ll plug an interesting blog post on the topic of using chemical weapons. The post concerns itself mostly with lethal weapons, but I feel like some of the points apply here as well.

    The essence is that for modern military systems, mobility and the relative cost of manufacturing, storing and employing (lethal) chemical weapons compared to protective equipment render them much less valuable than conventional explosive munitions. They see usage mostly between weaker static armies, which lack the equipment, training or command doctrines for modern warfare.

    The banning of chemical weapons was done because they weren’t generally very useful for the modern systems of the superpowers at the time. Russia cracking them out again suggests they no longer have all the capabilities of a modern superpower. Which probably isn’t super new for most people, but might be worth spelling out anyway.