Actual War Crimes

Russian troops have begun the use of new special gas grenades, identified as RG-Vo, against Ukrainian troops. These grenades contain an irritant toxic agent.

https://defence-blog.com/russian-troops-use-gas-grenades-with-cn-agent/?amp

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This was reported by Militarnyi, citing Captain Andrii Rudyk, a spokesperson from the Centre for Research on Trophy and Advanced Weapons and Military Equipment of the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

    According to Captain Rudik, Russian troops first used these new grenades against Ukrainian defenders in December 2023. The RG-Vo grenade contains a toxic chemical compound known as chloroacetophenone (CWS symbol), better known as military designation CN. This fact was confirmed by experts from the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise and was disclosed during a briefing at the Military Media Center by Captain Andriy Rudik.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >military designation CN
      That's awful, using CN gas is a warcrime, it should only be used on protestors and dissidents.

      It basically less safe CS gas. CS gas largely replaced it because of this

      It got used by Portland police during some protests because protestors in Portland had gotten used to CS gas and CN gas takes more exposure to become acclimated to.

      Chloroacetophenone (CN) has a sharp, irritating odor (sometimes described as “apple blossoms” odor).

      The Geneva Protocol prohibited Chloroacetophenone on the prohibition of the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases in war and of bacteriological methods of warfare in 1925. Additionally, it was banned for use in combat conditions by the United Nations General Assembly resolution A/RES/2603, titled “Question of Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons,” in 1969. Captain Andriy Rudik pointed out that the Russian Federation remains a signatory to both of these documents.

      >Rudik added that in December 2023, a total of 81 cases of Russian grenades containing poisonous substances were recorded.

      >a total of 81 cases of Russian grenades containing poisonous substances were recorded.
      given the absolute shitshow that is Russian logistics, I could totally see a few crates of these being issued by accident, probably in place of actually lethal grenades they were supposed to get. I doubt all the 81 recorded cases are of CN gas grenades, I bet they probably padded the numbers with some types of smoke grenades.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He emphasized that chloroacetophenone, used by the aggressors, is a lethal poisonous substance classified as a lacrimator agent. Its lethal toxicity dosage is 11 mg-min/m3. “Approximately 70 drops of such gas are sufficient to kill an adult person,” Captain Andriy Rudik stated.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      70 drops is approz 2.5 ml, that's a lot of fluid yo be breathing in.
      If you inhaled that much gasoline, you be fricked too

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It basically less safe CS gas. CS gas largely replaced it because of this

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wow, what an absolute fricking banger, and that Waldo Osama is just the cherry on top. Thank you for this!

            Somebody needs to get these dudes to do a song about Jenkem now.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, that's just a tear gas grenade.
        Lethality is mentioned just to attract attention, Russians aren't using them to outright kill Ukrainians, but to smoke them out of cover to finish them off with regular grenade drops.
        Technically, that's still a war crime, but in all honestly it's a moronic and weird restriction. Police routinely uses tear gas against civilians but doing that against enemy combatants is suddenly a no-no.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not that weird a restriction since once you normalize the use of tear gas, it's easy to mix in some lethal agents now and then while saying it's only tear gas :^). Meanwhile, nominally, a civilian government isn't out to kill everyone at a protest so they're not gonna mix in some VX.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not that weird a restriction since once you normalize the use of tear gas, it's easy to mix in some lethal agents now and then while saying it's only tear gas :^).
            By that logic, smoke grenades should also be banned.
            Presence of lethal agents would be easy to detect because the affected people are fricking dying instead of tearing up.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Smoke grenades are obscurants and therefore not under the same rule. Do you not read military laws? Get out of /k/.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Read the conversation, moron.
                I know the rules, I'm saying the rules are inconsistent.

                Tear gas, like any irritant, is lethal at increasing concentrations, so clearly they just choked to death on it. Smoke grenades aren't a chemical irritant, so it's much harder to kill people with. It's an arbitrary convention like how using WP is okay for smoke but a no-no for actually burning people to death, but dems da rules.

                >Tear gas, like any irritant, is lethal at increasing concentrations, so clearly they just choked to death on it.
                It's really hard to choke to death on a tear gas grenade when applied in the open, hence their use as less than lethal agent. Soldiers dying because they inhaled some gas would immediately set major red flags and cause an investigation, and distinguishing the cause of death would not be hard, chemicals leave traces.
                Systematic admixture of lethal agents won't go unnoticed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Except they're not being used on people in the open, they're being used on people in bunkers and trenches where the denser gas will sit. You also assume that you can do an investigation on some random dudes dying in a trench that will likely be behind enemy lines now since they killed said dudes in the trench and could assault it for free. You also have to know that your dudes died from inhaling the gas and not from getting tear gassed and then shot, which if there is a normalized usage of tear gas, is much harder to identify.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >where the denser gas will sit
                It won't, since it's hot. On any video of a CN grenade drop, you will clearly see it escaping the dugouts.
                You could maybe kill a man who gets trapped in a completely enclosed space, but any bunker has a human-sized entrance at the very least, and if the grenade got in, the gas can get out. You won't get anywhere close to lethal concentration from a single grenade.
                >You also assume that you can do an investigation on some random dudes dying in a trench
                Not on every single one, sure. And you could sneak in a cheeky warcrime or two undetected.
                But it won't be a case or two, a random frontline unit is not going to get access to those tear gas grenades with admixtures of lethal agent unless these are being mass-produced and their use is sanctioned by the army. If that happens, their use is going to be widespread, and it will be instantly detected because a lot of corpses are recovered.
                >You also have to know that your dudes died from inhaling the gas and not from getting tear gassed and then shot, which if there is a normalized usage of tear gas, is much harder to identify
                I'd say lack of a gun wound would be a big clue.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You ignore the biggest problem to your investigation thesis which is they're now behind Russian lines and they're not going to let you investigate their warcrimes for free, anon. All you'll have for information is what they report over the radio, which is a gas attack then maybe some choking then silence, which is hard to discriminate from simply getting attacked and destroyed by conventional methods after a tear gas attack.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You ignore the biggest problem to your investigation thesis which is they're now behind Russian lines and they're not going to let you investigate their warcrimes for free, anon.
                Because the frontlines are moving lighting fast, right.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Do you think they're gonna gas trenches miles behind the frontlines, or do it to the ones they're about to attack? Hell, you can look at the stories of the tear gas usage and see which of these two it is. You don't have to push the line quickly or far as long as you're taking the sites of your warcrimes for long enough to dispose of the evidence.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If they are immediately attacking the trenches they've just gassed with lethal agents, they will have to wear protective equipment.
                And if your enemy assault units looking like this doesn't give you a clue that something isn't right here, then honestly you deserve to be gassed for the betterment of humanity.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You do realize that there are lethal, or even tranquilizing, agents that aren't skin penetrating and would only require a gas mask which you'd be justifiable in wearing when attacking a position that you just hit with tear gas, right? It doesn't have to be a hyper lethal nerve or blister agent.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Then the defending side would simply put on gas masks of their own. We are talking about a scenario where tear gas usage is not banned in warfare and you get reports of your units getting attacked by unknown gas all the time, remember? So gas masks would be standard issue equipment for frontline soldiers.
                No, you'd want to use skin-penetrating agents, as defenders taken by surprise won't have time to put on a full suit. Anything less would be pointless.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There are plenty of fast acting inhalants, especially since we're dealing with drone dropped gas grenades that will allow minimal reaction time and not rolling artillery barrages where the gas then wafts in. We're also in a world where we're getting constant reports of getting hit by tear gas attacks since they've been normalized in this world, not some unknown gas, so while masks would probably be standard issue, the SOP would be how to deal with tear gas and not on how to deal with a lethal agent. You are ascribing to the thought of fully committing down the escalation ladder full speed, while the original discussion was how normalized usage of tear gas allows the disguising of lethal agents which creates a grayzone of getting away with some war crimes, which is why tear gas is banned by convention.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Fair enough.
                I disagree that tear gas attacks have been normalized, we don't see anything that would even register next to actual chemical warfare of WWI, but it would be possible indeed to effectively use some incredibly fast-acting agent.

                That point still stands, though:

                Besides, even in this scenario they will be one failed assault away from being discovered.
                And if you can't repel even a single attack, then your side is fricked anyway and you are better off capitulating.

                It would be really easy to distinguish the bodies killed by lethal agents, especially now that we've remembered people in this scenario are trained and equipped to defend against tear gas. A single repelled assault would give defenders the opportunity to examine suspicious bodies and raise hell.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I agree that they haven't been normalized yet, but avoiding that normalization is why they're banned which what the original anon was sperging about. I do agree with your point that a failed attack could easily lead to discovery of said lethal agents, but as we've seen in this war, proofs are not easily accepted when one side makes a claim and the other denies it, especially when they can make the believable but false claim it was just tear gas, or it was a mixup at the supply depot and never intended to be used. It's far easier to keep the battlefield clean of offensive gas usage, regardless of type, to minimize the potential for gray zone bullshit, especially if both sides want to avoid escalating to WMDs which was the original thought process behind the treaty.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >proofs are not easily accepted when one side makes a claim and the other denies it
                Can't really agree with that. It's been widely accepted that Assad used chemical weapons, for example, because OPCW got to examine the place of attack. Don't see why it won't go that way if Ukraine gives OPCW inspectors access to a gassed trench and poisoned bodies, along with the drone footage of Russian gas grenade drops on this position.

                Anyway, I see your point, and I somewhat agree with this reasoning.
                It just seems arbitrary to ban this specific thing because it could theoretically provide a flimsy cover for gray zone bullshittery if utilized by malicious agents who just want to stealthily poison some guy in a trench despite the huge risks and limited payoff, meanwhile allowing shit like dropping WP on civilian populated areas because "lol lmao smokescreen".

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It is arbitrary, but it's also not? You were never going to have a complete ban on smoke producing grenades because concealment on demand is too powerful, but the tactical advantage of offensive gas is relatively low compared to it's WMD capability. This means it's easy to get countries to agree to not use it, and in a fast war, not a slow slugfest like this, you don't want the other guy to have to try and figure out if you just used tear gas or something more aggressive when he's got the red button in front of him to start launching WMDs back at you.

                There's some good books on the topic that discuss in further detail how the point of the rules aren't to make war clean, since it never will, but to codify and prevent behavior that is marginally useful on the battlefield while being overly destructive. A good example of this is how you're never obligated to accept a surrender, since you could weaponize an obligation like that, but there are rules that must be followed once you've made the choice to accept the surrender.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You were never going to have a complete ban on smoke producing grenades
                Air-delivered WP is not exactly a smoke producing grenade, is it?
                You could ban or at least restrict it's use without affecting non-toxic-high-temperature-burning-kids-sticking-impossible-to-extinguish-incendiary means to put up a smokescreen.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Air delivered WP is an effective and low cost producer of smoke. You can look back at the videos from when Russia was shooting WP at Asov in the steel factory and see that it was effective at producing smoke even if we all know what's not what they intended for it do.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Air delivered WP is an effective and low cost producer of smoke.
                And tear gas is an effective and low cost trench-clearing measure, yet we ban it.
                WP is not without alternatives. If you can afford to air-drop shit on enemy positions without getting shot down, you can afford to use less efficient but more humane munitions.

                >You can look back at the videos from when Russia was shooting WP at Asov in the steel factory and see that it was effective at producing smoke even if we all know what's not what they intended for it do.
                Pretty sure it was thermite, and Russians didn't even pretend they were putting up a smokescreen. No reason to, Azovstal was not a civilian populated area, use of incendiaries against combatants is not banned by any convention.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You do know that you can shoot WP out of artillery or other low cost methods of delivery where WP has an advantage of being low cost, works without much regard for weather, and is volume efficient, right? There's also no real confusion as to what WP is, which means it doesn't have an escalation risk problem. It's also a pretty low risk thing, even if you don't want to be in the target zone for it, given how controlled it is by nature of being a simple combustion and done. If you want a better example of the arbitraryness of the rules, look at how blinding lasers are verbotin but targeting lasers are perfectly fine even if they can produce blindness and how many Iraqis had vision problems as a result of the Gulf War.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You do know that you can shoot WP out of artillery or other low cost methods of delivery where WP has an advantage of being low cost, works without much regard for weather, and is volume efficient, right?
                I have nothing against the use of WP smokescreens where volume efficiency is crucial, such as hand grenades, but surely there's no issue with completely banning air-delivered WP in civilian areas, right? This specific use is not even morally gray.
                I mean, I unironically struggle to imagine a scenario where
                >you completely control the airspace
                >you need to deploy a smokescreen
                >over enemy positions (?)
                >you need a fast-acting screen, so it's urgent and unexpected
                >but you just happen to have an aircraft armed with WP bombs on standby
                >it's all happening over civilian-filled area
                That just seems like a very convoluted excuse to do warcrimes and nothing else.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's not supposed to be used in civilian areas according to doctrine, as far as Western armies go, without an effort being made to minimize civilian suffering, but the fundamental problem is that WP is too tactically beneficial while being minimally escalatory to be banned off the battlefield and as such, it will be misused and even when used properly, it will cause greater then zero suffering. However, while WP is not pretty, any sort of chemical reaction that is going to produce thick clouds of smoke regardless of the weather is likely to be self oxidizing and as such also be very hard to extinguish even if embedded in tissue, so you're not going to see a significant change even if you move to a different chemical. Also, 99% of WP delivered in a war zone is through artillery, not airpower.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >tear gas is an effective and low cost trench-clearing measure, yet we ban it.
                lol no. Chemical weapons are only effective against armies that can't even afford give everyone a rifle. Against anyone else their only effect is to force everyone to wear uncomfortable protective equipment. The reason the treaty against using chemical weapons gained any traction is precisely because they are useless, so banning them was an easy virtue signal without actually giving up any capabilities. The same countries that agreed to ban chemical weapons hesitate to ban things like land mines or cluster munitions, because those things are actually useful.

                very editable image. The puddle should be replaced with a vegana

                it's called "exploitable" newbie

                phosphorous smoke grenades are a chemical irritant because they make phosphoric acid or phosphorous pentoxide (depending on how much moisture is in the air)

                generally the sorts of things which quickly make a smoke screen that hangs around tend to also be rather nasty. According to Wikipedia, zinc chloride, chlorosulfuric acid, and titanium tetrachloride, along with a bunch of different types of phosphorous, all of those are used in military smokescreens, and none of them are safe to breath, hell, most of them aren't even safe to have exposed to your skin.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Besides, even in this scenario they will be one failed assault away from being discovered.
                And if you can't repel even a single attack, then your side is fricked anyway and you are better off capitulating.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you not read military laws? Get out of /k/.
                A true /k/ommando only thinks of the the laws of war as a checklist. Moralgays gtfo.

                Tear gas, like any irritant, is lethal at increasing concentrations, so clearly they just choked to death on it. Smoke grenades aren't a chemical irritant, so it's much harder to kill people with. It's an arbitrary convention like how using WP is okay for smoke but a no-no for actually burning people to death, but dems da rules.

                >Smoke grenades aren't a chemical irritant
                wooo boy you've obviously never actually been around a smoke grenade. Or a campfire for that matter.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Underage b& off my board. With your free time, you can also look up the definition of a chemical irritant and realize that technical terms have an actual meaning.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >my board.
                this isn't your board moralgay. We like war here, we don't baaawww like you do.
                >look up the definition of a chemical irritant and realize that technical terms have an actual meaning.
                many (probably even most) smoke grenades are actual chemical irritants, smoke grenades are explicitly excluded from the definition of chemical weapons in those "laws of war" even if they have an irritant effect. You don't know what you're talking about.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                phosphorous smoke grenades are a chemical irritant because they make phosphoric acid or phosphorous pentoxide (depending on how much moisture is in the air)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Tear gas, like any irritant, is lethal at increasing concentrations, so clearly they just choked to death on it. Smoke grenades aren't a chemical irritant, so it's much harder to kill people with. It's an arbitrary convention like how using WP is okay for smoke but a no-no for actually burning people to death, but dems da rules.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >irritant agent

      >lacrimator

      It's just tear gas isn't it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's old timey tear gas that's found to be toxic to humans. It is technically just an irritant, but it's pretty telling the Russians specifically chose the kind of tear gas that's toxic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah

        It's old timey tear gas that's found to be toxic to humans. It is technically just an irritant, but it's pretty telling the Russians specifically chose the kind of tear gas that's toxic.

        >toxic to humans.
        that's a matter of dosage, everything is poisonous at the right dosage. American police use CN gas when they think it's appropriate, it's not obsolete or anything, it is definitely more potent than the usual stuff.
        >it's pretty telling the Russians specifically chose
        the old adage that you should usually assume incompetence instead of malice still applies to Russians. While they have been rather vile, they've been shockingly incompetent to an even greater degree. Their logistical shitshow is so bad that accidentally issuing a couple crates of gas grenades instead of frags or smokes doesn't just seem plausible, I'm amazed we haven't seen this sort of thing sooner, or even worse stuff, like GA or something.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Chloroacetophenone (CN) has a sharp, irritating odor (sometimes described as “apple blossoms” odor).

    The Geneva Protocol prohibited Chloroacetophenone on the prohibition of the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases in war and of bacteriological methods of warfare in 1925. Additionally, it was banned for use in combat conditions by the United Nations General Assembly resolution A/RES/2603, titled “Question of Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons,” in 1969. Captain Andriy Rudik pointed out that the Russian Federation remains a signatory to both of these documents.

    >Rudik added that in December 2023, a total of 81 cases of Russian grenades containing poisonous substances were recorded.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So what does /k/ think? I know everyone is burnt out on the Russo-Ukrainian war but this seems more substantial than your typical drone drops and turret tosses.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You know how Russians call everything remotely effective a war crime?
      And here they are committing actual war crimes.
      Every accusation by a vatBlack person is a confession. If use of chemical weapons by Saddam was enough justification for US intervention, the same applies here.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If this is ignored Zelinsky should drop a big ass barrel of nerve gas right in st pidorsberg.
        Russia deserves all the shit they've been doing in return tenfold.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You know Russia has nukes right? And they're very irresponsible and irrational? You can argue about M.A.D. til the end of time but if Russia nukes Ukraine, regardless of what happens afterwards to Russia, Ukraine still gets nuked.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            At this point I honestly don't believe Russia has working nuclear missiles.
            They can prove it's not just a bluff and try to nuke Ukraine, I'd enjoy seeing the footage of their entire septic tank of a nation get scrubbed from the face of the earth when every single other nation finally has the excuse needed to erase that wretched swathe of filth.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >At this point I honestly don't believe Russia has working nuclear missiles.

              cope all you want about their human wave tactics but they definitely have functional nukes, you really have no basis for saying they don't and it'd be absolutely suicidal to just assume they don't too

              even streetshitters have nukes bro

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Blessed trips. But strategic is very much operational. Tactical on the other hand has rotted away decades ago.

                https://i.imgur.com/WW5Tr6D.jpg

                They definitely still have a few, just not enough to feel comfortable with pulling the trigger yet. Time will tell though.

                https://i.imgur.com/yJP84PP.jpg

                >turn Europe's bread basket into an unlivable nuclear wasteland
                >mass starvation for decades

                yeah they wouldn't need to use a ton

                we already know they have no scruples and will do anything, including sacrificing their own people en masse. they starved millions of Ukes to death in the 1930s just because they didn't like communism. they will definitely ape out and drop the big bombs if you put monke in a corner.

                Kek at this cope. The world has already seen the state of their capabilities. Thry haven't maintained shit for the last three decades, if not four. Goat farmers in the middle east are more capable.
                >inb4 Su-57 "5th gen stealth fighter" (kek) is operational
                >inb4 armata is operational

                tl;dr kys Ivan and rajesh

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They have less than 50 working nuclear devices

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Enough nukes to delete a couple big cities is all you need for credible deterrence.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not if a decapitation strike disables them before Russia is even aware

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Implying decapitation strikes are relevant when SSBNs exist

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >implying shitty Russian submarines would be left unmolested leading up to the Event

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They are when your SSBNs are leaky, loud tubs crewed by drunken, slovenly inbreds which are constantly trailed by their far-better-equipped, better-funded, more-professional enemies.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >no basis
                officer embezzlement + russian "why worry about something that isn't going to happen" mentality + nukes are expensive to maintain = little to no nook

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Blessed trips. But strategic is very much operational. Tactical on the other hand has rotted away decades ago.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              They definitely still have a few, just not enough to feel comfortable with pulling the trigger yet. Time will tell though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >turn Europe's bread basket into an unlivable nuclear wasteland
                >mass starvation for decades

                yeah they wouldn't need to use a ton

                we already know they have no scruples and will do anything, including sacrificing their own people en masse. they starved millions of Ukes to death in the 1930s just because they didn't like communism. they will definitely ape out and drop the big bombs if you put monke in a corner.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're right and I'm still starting to feel like this might be 100% worth it as long as all the snowBlack folk get genocided. Americans are fricking moronic, they should've nuked them right in 1945.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                America should've just stayed home in the 1940s. A few nukes in Japan would've sorted them out, no need for all the messiness. Europe would've sorted itself out too.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              They have a working space program and send astronauts to the ISS, which is alot more difficult then ICBMs so that's a pretty bad assumption.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >working
                Okay guys, who's gonna tell him?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                bro you're behind by about 10 years.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to ensure russia is glassed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I have not seen much in the way of CBRN gear on Ukrainian troops, not even gas mask leg bags. I always thought this was a huge oversight, it is not surprising that Russia is starting to use chemical weapons, this should have been standard training and equipment starting back in 2015. That's what I think anyway.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Should have been apart of the original non lethal aid way back when

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Cool, maybe someone else does though?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      nah no one cares about these ukranian war shit threads there are 50 a day, created, beeing comented on, only by bots, or glowies from either side, not real people.

      People couldnt care less, and are getting fed up with both sides propganda. i personally am getting fed up with pro ukraine ones, you people need to lay back a bit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes I'm a bot, only you are the human in this board. You're very smart.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I doubt it at this point unless they start using VX

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >millions dead and/or maimed
    >i sleep
    >a grenade with some spicy gas
    >noooooo this is too much!

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Not too sure about that, I feel like the people on the edge of the blast zone that didn't get instantly vaporised might move away from there.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Trench warfare
    >human wave attacks
    >indiscriminate bombing
    >and now poison gas

    mucho basado

    Russia didn't have the guts to finish what they started in 1914, maybe this time they'll actually follow through. Probably not though, they're born cowards like everything east of Poland.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what Ukrainian infantry are going to end up looking like in another year or so of upgrading to counter latest zigger cope attempt

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the scooby doo crossover episode was a banger

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Whos who?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      2bh kinda doubtful considering most of them are like 5'4" goblins, most slavs are little manlet oompa loompas which is why German ubermensch steamrolled them in no time flat

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Anon the man in that suit is a post-wwII jap. He's probably 5'5 at best.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Then the MG42/MG3 is not to scale, because those guns are quite large and the Wolf's Brigade wouldn't be made up of manlets.

          Besides they show him out of uniform in the anime and he's not a little fella, he's a big guy, especially for you.

          All slavs are subhumans, therefore human rights do not apply.

          So you're saying they all deserve to get gassed?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lol
        They are well above world or even Europe average with average male height being 180cm (5'11" in burgers).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They're below 180cm. The frick are you talking about?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They're below 180cm. The frick are you talking about?

          They aren't 6 foot chads and they aren't latin goblins, they are king of manlets.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That is already what they look like though. Russia claims that they are being killed by bioengineered HATO supersoldiers that were released from the secret US funded biolabs.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reminds me of the time Incel Slave Z was going around spreading rumors about Ukies hitting those two Ziggers that drowned in that ditch with "nerve gas" or something.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ah the good old Wagner Shake video

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      very editable image. The puddle should be replaced with a vegana

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nothing new, both sides are occasionally using them since 2014 without any significant impact

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    [...]

    https://i.imgur.com/qlmPDU9.jpg

    >Trench warfare
    >human wave attacks
    >indiscriminate bombing
    >and now poison gas

    mucho basado

    Russia didn't have the guts to finish what they started in 1914, maybe this time they'll actually follow through. Probably not though, they're born cowards like everything east of Poland.

    Hungarian-american claws typed these posts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      who hurt you?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All slavs are subhumans, therefore human rights do not apply.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It wouldn't surprise me at all, but it doesn't seem to be occuring at a rate that would warrant action by outside influences like the UN or The Hague.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly dude the UN is never going to do shit about frick all anyway. Their highest court condemned Israel for what's happening in Gaza while they decide if it's a "genocide" or not. Even then they didn't call for a cease fire so Israel just said "Ok, frick the UN we aren't stopping." Then they declared the UN wouldn't be able to operate in Israel anymore after the war and told the US to cut their funding. Lmfao

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Then they declared the UN wouldn't be able to operate in Israel anymore after the war and told the US to cut their funding. Lmfao
        If you had told me one year ago that I’d like Israel today, I’d call you a schizo. The world is crazy

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    stop making duplicate threads you homosexuals

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I made my thread first b***h boy. Go cry in the other thread about it.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    you're not suggesting Ukraine would lie now are you?

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    See

    [...]

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Did that second guy die from the gas or something?
      >rekt nerve gas meme has been made manifest

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's just propaganda anon you can't be this naive

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Propaganda for who exactly? Since both Russia and Ukraine have posted about it now.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Before the war started:
    >russia: we're not preparing an invasion, schizo. It's only a military exercise
    >ukraine: western country plz help they're going to invade waaaah 🙁
    Ukraine may cry like baby, but they have relatively better track record in not lying than russians.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So what you're saying is that Russia is now a full decade or 3652 days into their 3 day special military operation?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Currently they have no interest in ending the war
    They should just allow Russia to take over whatever they want, right? Take your meds, Russia does not need to be appeased as it's a third rate power.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    That is pretty fricking crazy that all these countries let the president of a completely different country tell them how and where to spend their money. It's also wild that it is all vastly underrepresented by "trillions" of dollars as you say.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You don't think like most people because you are dysgenic mental moron

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Sorry boys, nothin personnel but I don't think, like the rest of you sheeple.

    Ftfy (commas are important!)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >that tiger is asking for it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Careful now, that's a Russian tiger.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >its just spicy gas
    >not vx
    i fricking sleep

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Well wake the frick up because I hear Putin is planning on rolling out a special new "high intensity" formula of V-X soon.

      I've heard it referred to in the Kremlin as "HIV-X"

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    so what's AFU's track record of lying and why aren't you vatniks spamming those receipts at every opportunity instead of just alluding to Ukrainian untrustworthyness?

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My great grandfather used gas to “smoke out” Japs hiding in caves on Iwojima
    What is different about this?
    Not trolling by the way, actually just curious

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Well we also nuked the Japs so I think "smoking them out" can get a pass.
      >What is different about this?
      The Geneva Convention exists

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "Smoking out" probably meant literally that; using smoke from fire or a smoke grenade to get them to vacate a cave.

      Chemical warfare is a whole different beast of awful and primarily it shows the ruskies are willing to stoop to such a low level to use terror weapons like gas.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >What is different about this?
      A couple of things, first and foremost that prior to WWII Japan hadn't signed shit regarding the usage of chemical weapons while Russia (inc. as USSR) has signed a number of treaties enjoining them from CW. Secondly, Russia's violation is unilateral whereas during WWII it wasn't; the Japs had been using gas frequently against the Chinese but only used them very infrequently against the allies because they were leery of getting smacked back even harder.

      Thirdly: while the use of CS and the like is very much on the mild end of the war crime spectrum, the fact that the use is escalating is pretty concerning because there's a very real possibility that Russians will start using more lethal agents and at that point the genie will be as close as it has ever come to escaping the bottle - if Russia graduates to using lethal agents (which is something well within their capabilities) then that's tantamount to nuclear warfare.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks man 🙂

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Should be noted CS gas only became illegal for use in war in the 1990s.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >only used them very infrequently against the allies
        Did they use them at all against the allies? I've never heard an account.

        Should be noted CS gas only became illegal for use in war in the 1990s.

        >Should be noted CS gas only became illegal for use in war in the 1990s.
        And are not at all illegal for internal law enforcement, which Russia is what this war is in Russia's sick mind.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >And are not at all illegal for internal law enforcement, which Russia is what this war is in Russia's sick mind.
          The problem with brain worms, though, is the other guy doesn't have them. So when you gas his dudes, he's not going to listen to your excuses for why you did it, he's probably just going to escalate. Well, and summarily kill captives caught with such weapons.

          I'll note both sides have been using CS in trench raids for a while. I don't know who started it, but there was a Yook infantryman on camera casually talking about flushing bunkers with it, so it's not new and it's not secret.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Russia's violation is unilateral
        https://www.kyivpost.com/post/19108
        >Drone operators on both sides of the Russo-Ukrainian War have from time to time attempted attacks against enemy trenches using tear gas (CS) grenades. CS gas is not commonly used in grenade-drop drone attacks, due to the relatively small amount of CS gas in a grenade and more lethal results dropping conventional hand grenades or modified mortar shells.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nips violated every single element of the laws of war and thus no one fighting them was bound by their strictures. This is also why Marines were not punished for summarily executing Japanese wounded and surrenders (and were instead bribed with ice cream and leave to take them alive, which they still mostly refused to do).

      Basically if you act like a Black person you'll get treated like one.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    t. moron that was proud to explains he had his brain basically shut off in 2014

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *