It seems like Russia sent troops to fight in Crimea without any markings. Why cannot the US send in a small force (for example just to take down Russian aircraft) without any markings? Also taking into account that the chance of them getting captured is quite low.
-
Given the little that we do know about the invovlment of US special forces in war zones abroad, it might be that the US is actually doing it.– Jacob3Commented Mar 6, 2022 at 11:51
-
NOTE: Russia is not Iraq. Russia has the world's second largest air force and will not be deterred by "a small force, just to take down Russian aircraft". They will respond to this "small force" with repeated air strikes, excessive artillery shelling and massive ground forces.– RBarryYoungCommented Mar 6, 2022 at 15:16
-
1Of course they can. But they don't want. Why should they? This question should motivate more why this would be advantageous in and way.– NoDataDumpNoContributionCommented Mar 6, 2022 at 15:32
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
They can do it. Russia would see through the deception unless it were very small numbers for very special operations, and act accordingly. People seem to believe that international law is like an U.S. courtroom where a highly paid defense lawyer can get a crook off on a technicality. It is much more primal than that.
Unlike what nick012000 says in the comments, it would probably not be a war crime in itself, as long as the troops act in accordance with the laws of war. An American study of the 'polite green men' occupying Crimea came to the conclusion that Russian gear and uniforms without Russian insignia made them sufficiently distinct to remove any suggestion of deception.
This wouldn't be the same thing. Russian troops were pulling this trick fighting against Ukrainian forces. Not NATO.
If the US was to do this, and then send these "cleverly spooked up" soldiers to fight against Russian troops, this would in effect mean NATO on Russia combat.
Not a good idea at all, not with nuclear states on both sides. Please understand the risks.
p.s. and also, possibly (see o.m. remark), inconveniently absolving Russia from having to respect too much of the Geneva conventions with regards to POWs, which are predicated on clearly identified soldiers. But that's not the primary problem.
The primary problem is, as usual with all these schemes, direct NATO-Russia combat is a VERY BAD IDEA with nuclear weapons in the background.
answered Mar 6, 2022 at 6:28
Italian Philosophers 4 MonicaItalian Philosophers 4 Monica
87k12 gold badges206 silver badges348 bronze badges
-
Regarding that last paragraph, see the link in my answer. Distinctiveness does not require flags, as long as the uniforms are distinct and uniform.– o.m.Commented Mar 6, 2022 at 6:35
-
Not quite true/relevant since Ukraine uses US-made Stinger and Javelin missiles. Commented Mar 6, 2022 at 6:37
-
Mmmm, not entirely sure I buy all of that. If you were dealing with recognizably uniformed mercenaries for example, would the POW regulations apply? Or could you try them in criminal court? Maybe not as terrorists, but maybe not quite POW status? Dunno. I wouldn't bet on it either way. Commented Mar 6, 2022 at 6:38
-
@Fizz, I disasgree. Russia can tell an American ABCT from an Ukrainian armored brigade, anything else would be delusional.– o.m.Commented Mar 6, 2022 at 6:40
-
guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/mercenaries : If arrested, mercenaries are not entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but the detaining power can decide to treat them according to this status. They must always be treated humanely according to the fundamental guarantees of humanitarian law, as defined by Article 75 of API. They can be prosecuted for being a mercenary only under the national law of the detaining power if it contains such provisions designating mercenarism as a distinct crime. Commented Mar 6, 2022 at 6:46