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.
This is beyond the pale. It’s time to stop forcing Ukraine to fight with a hand tied.
This is beyond the pale.
But not surprising. Not for Russians.
Actually, Russia inadvertently originated the phrase.
The more you know 🌠
The Irish one predates it, but even this page notes that there’s uncertainty that the phrase arises from the Irish Pale.
The less I know 🌠
Also where the term “impale” comes from, the Pale was demarcated by poles hammered into the ground, and when you didn’t like someone you killed them by jamming them on one of those poles.
The Wikipedia article says “the pale” comes from the Latin word palus, fencepost, so I think “impale” probably comes direct from there.
Yeah, there has to be a response to this. The Russians will continue to escalate their war crimes if there are not consequences. Weapons free Ukraine.
Fuck Putin and fuck Russia. Slava Ukraini
Let Ukraine off the leash, they need to stop playing by all the rules. Hit them back with ruthless parity.
No. Get them the tools to do it right.
Wouldn’t that be nice.
Totally hear you, but warcrimes are like, the literal least we can do to be not complete animals
This attitude is how we got into the genocide being committed by Israel. The solution to violence is not more violence.
Russia IS committing genocide with the intent to wipe out the very concept of Ukraine. The solution to being genocided is to fight back with every tooth and every nail.
deleted by creator
Yes, but nothing in the rules of war or international law say you can’t attack the enemy nation’s territory. The people loaning Ukraine weapons are the ones saying that. The same ones that held up many supplies at a critical time during the Spring 2024 offensive.
deleted by creator
It is not allowed by the US. It is not disallowed by international war crime agreements, but that doesn’t make it allowed if something else is preventing it.
Man, someone needs to get a hold of Putin and inform him there’s international laws he’s breaking.
deleted by creator
My intent isn’t malicious. I just want to stress the point that this isn’t a game - a game with referees. There are real lives being lost by playing nice. The west needs to up their support while allowing Ukraine to use the same tactics, short of rape and torture, as Russia.
Russia: Genociding wildly
You: “We shouldn’t get involved, that would just increase the violence.”
The only language people like Putin and Hitler understand is violence, they do what they do because they think nobody will dare stop them.
You missed the point. The point the other guy made is that for the past 50+ countries have turned a blind eye to Isreal not playing by the rules and that has let Israel become more and more ruthless to a point where they’re the ones effectively committing genocide. Maybe Ukraine won’t turn out like Israel but is it really the door we want to open?
Just because Russia is getting increasing more violent and inhumane doesn’t mean Ukraine should follow the same path. Nobody is saying Ukraine shouldn’t defend itself (or fight on Russian soil), we’re just saying we shouldn’t turn a blind eye if Ukraine starts shelling humanitarian corridors, chopping off legs of prisoners, gas striking the front etc.
Do you know why there are no nazis committing holocausts across Europe right now?
Because we killed them all.
Hate to break it to you, but they just moved to the USA and started calling themselves Republicans.
They were always here, they were southerners, Hitler wrote about how Jim crow was an example Germany needed to follow.
Black GIs came home to be tortured and killed.
Because after the Civil War we DIDN’T clean out the leadership and they simply slimed back into power later.
Er, no. We didn’t. Not in the slightest.
Go learn history. This “we must show them” mentality is how after WW1 Nazis got into a position of power. And no, we didn’t kill all of them. Some were sent to the Hague, most were picked up by the US (unsurprisingly US now has a fascism problem) and the rest (the wider population) got collectively guilted out of nazism. Oh and we made sure Nazi and Fascist are so bad words that actual Nazis and Fascists use them in a derogatory way to not associate themselves with that word.
The idea that we should ruthlessly kill Russians because Putin is a horrible person is Lemmygrad level of idiotic.
Actually it’s because you killed thousands of innocent Japanese, using a weapon that could wipe all life on Earth. (So they moved other there of course, they sounds like a fascist dream)
Everybody always gets hung up on the nukes but I never see anyone complaining about the firebombing which killed many times more people (or the Japanese and their many attempts at biological warfare).
War is inherently bad, and using powerful weapons to end it sooner is the pragmatic and often moral choice. Would you have preferred that the allies invaded Japan, causing millions more to die? Or perhaps simply blocade Japan, causing millions more to die? It’s easy to be moralistic when you don’t have to make decisions that have millions of lives hanging on them.
Sounds like we didn’t use enough then, if you’re still here.
Sure. That’s not what they were saying though. They were saying supplying arms to Israel is bad because they’re using it to commit a genocide, so we shouldn’t provide the means for Ukraine to defend themselves because it must be equally bad. Fuck that. If Ukraine doesn’t win Russia is going to do horrible things. They must be stopped. We should be providing the means for Ukraine to do this and allowing them to use them how they see it needed.
At no point did I say Ukraine shouldn’t get what it needs to end the war. What I said is that we shouldn’t let Ukraine get away with the same things Russia is doing. If for example Ukraine would gas the Russian front line we shouldn’t be “well Russia did it first”. Chemical warfare is not acceptable. Turning a blind eye towards atrocities is how we got Isreal.
The other guy is pretty much saying it would be okay if Ukraine dirty bombed Moscow because he is literally implying we should kill all Russians.
Some times and with some people, yes violence is the answer.
Can you explain any other solution that leaves Ukraine with its territory and its compleat self rule?
“They go low, we go high.”
Sounds a lot like war crimes.
It’s Russia. It’d be easier finding a “legal” needle in the haystack of war crimes.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Did they have gas masks for the horses? (Honest question. I guess I could look it up but… Meh)
Yup, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=horse+gas+mask&t=fpas&iax=images&ia=images - loads of varities though I’m not sure on numbers deployed. Due to the rather static lines of defense I do believe the second world war actually saw more horses used! The nazis were always scrambling for oil and petroleum and thus they utilised stupendous amounts of horses
Yes, I’ve actually seen some in museums. I bet the horses hated them.
100 years after the First World War.
Everything old is new again.
War crimes are back on menu it seems. Or it always has been there?
With Russia? Always has been.
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.
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
Is that title extremely confusing, or just me? I’m suffering from a concussion and was told to watch for signs of confusion.
Nah it’s a strangely worded title you’re good
“boosts grinding” is a bit awkward, because it’s unclear which is a verb in this context. I hope you make a speedy and full recovery, TBI is no joke.
I had to read it a few times. It’s confusing
Russia is boosting the grinding Donbas advance with chemical warfare
What does “grinding” mean in this context?
“Relentlessly taxing; burdensome; exacting to the point of exhaustion.”
Ohh the title makes sense now. Thanks for filling in the missing piece.
It could’ve been written better, as it’s very cumbersome to read the way it is. Especially since it starts with an “Adjective noun:”
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.
It is a chemical weapon. What historical event? The US does nothing but sit on its hands and talk a big game. They would probably confiscate the gas to be used on innocents in Gaza.
I feel like I answered that question already. “The US has apparently laid out what happens next in painstaking detail”. I was not in the room, so I don’t know what that means exactly, but it’s a bunch of specifically allocated military facilities to be bombed out or something.
Please dump the polemic somewhere else. I’m upset about Gaza too.
Russia has used chemical weapons before to a silent US. Call it what you want but I dont have faith in the word of the US government.
Glad you do, all the while you are upset about Gaza.
I wasnt being snarky I wanted to know the historical event, your comment was worded strangely.
no, they would just do nothing
Up production of gas to profit off the surge in demand seems likely.
nah, farm, we already saw the American “red line” against gas attacks in Syria, the answer has always been “do nothing”, also the American MIC would never sell gas, not enough margin, now mining companies on the other hand
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.
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 sourceMedia 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
