KREUZADER (Posts tagged war)

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
‘Combat in the Streets’ of Kyiv as Russian Saboteurs Sneak In Ukrainian officials—including a defiant President Zelensky—declared on Saturday morning that they had fought off a Russian effort to seize Kyiv. Explosions rang out throughout the city...

‘Combat in the Streets’ of Kyiv as Russian Saboteurs Sneak In

Ukrainian officials—including a defiant President Zelensky—declared on Saturday morning that they had fought off a Russian effort to seize Kyiv.

Explosions rang out throughout the city overnight as authorities said Russian forces repeatedly tried to blow up a power plant and fierce fighting erupted across the Ukrainian capital.

“There is combat in the streets of our city right now,” city authorities bluntly warned in a message on Telegram.

As the sun came up, Zelensky recorded another of the social media phone videos that are becoming an iconic symbol of Ukrainian resistance. He announced that the city was still under his control and that Russia’s latest salvos had not shaken Kyiv’s desire to fight.

Source: thedailybeast.com
ukraine russia war
from August 2019: Iran’s Threat to Saudi Critical Infrastructure: The Implications of U.S.-Iranian Escalation Tensions between Iran and the United States have heightened concerns about the threat to critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf,...

from August 2019:

Iran’s Threat to Saudi Critical Infrastructure: The Implications of U.S.-Iranian Escalation

Tensions between Iran and the United States have heightened concerns about the threat to critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, including in Saudi Arabia. This report argues that while Saudi Arabia has vulnerabilities in its oil, desalination, electricity, SCADA, shipping, and other systems, Iran has thus far adopted a calibrated approach. Tehran has conducted irregular attacks to infrastructure using offensive cyber weapons, naval ships to impede oil tankers, and partners like the Houthis in Yemen. The United States should focus on deterring further Iranian escalation, refraining from actions that threaten the regime’s survival, and providing a political “off ramp” for Iran to de-escalate.

Source: csis.org
iran united states saudi arabia war
A Middle East Monarchy Hired American Ex-Soldiers To Kill Its Political Enemies. “Cradling an AK-47 and sucking a lollipop, the former American Green Beret bumped along in the back of an armored SUV as it wound through the darkened streets of Aden....

A Middle East Monarchy Hired American Ex-Soldiers To Kill Its Political Enemies.

Cradling an AK-47 and sucking a lollipop, the former American Green Beret bumped along in the back of an armored SUV as it wound through the darkened streets of Aden. Two other commandos on the mission were former Navy SEALs. As elite US special operations fighters, they had years of specialized training by the US military to protect America. But now they were working for a different master: a private US company that had been hired by the United Arab Emirates, a tiny desert monarchy on the Persian Gulf.

On that night, December 29, 2015, their job was to carry out an assassination.

Their armed attack, described to BuzzFeed News by two of its participants and corroborated by drone surveillance footage, was the first operation in a startling for-profit venture. For months in war-torn Yemen, some of America’s most highly trained soldiers worked on a mercenary mission of murky legality to kill prominent clerics and Islamist political figures.

Source: buzzfeednews.com
war
“Last week without fanfare, a 230-page military document (PDF) appeared in the public domain. The document, authored in May 2016, is a comprehensive list of rules, standards, and definitions governing the heart of what the military does: picking...

Last week without fanfare, a 230-page military document (PDF) appeared in the public domain. The document, authored in May 2016, is a comprehensive list of rules, standards, and definitions governing the heart of what the military does: picking targets, and making sure those targets are valid and within the bounds of the laws of war.

The Pentagon isn’t exactly sure how the document ended up online. On Monday, Nov. 15, the nonprofit Federation of American Scientists ran a short post on the newly public document. Entitled “Joint Chiefs Urge “Due Diligence” in Targeting the Enemy,” the post highlights the central theme of the instruction manual: attacking the wrong target in war can have negative consequences for the United States and the countries it works with. This is a simple point, repeated and clarified through page after unredacted page in great detail, setting not just the rules but the very language that America’s military uses when fighting wars and deciding which object or person to fire at.

[…]

There’s also the possibility that this release is aimed, not at setting rules for the future, but showing when existing practices have been violated. Civilian appointees to the Pentagon in this administration “use normative language about the use of force,” says Zenko, with an aim to “reinforce norms about precision, discrimination, proportionality, adherence to laws of armed conflict.”

“Then if there’s a rupture in that with the next administration,” Zenko continues, “it becomes more jarring, it becomes a little harder to sustain, especially among congressional overseers.”

Source: popsci.com
united states military war politics
doctorswithoutborders.org

Public release of initial MSF internal review - Kunduz

Hospitals have protected status under the rules of war. And yet in the early hours of 3 October, the MSF hospital in Kunduz came under relentless and brutal aerial attack by US forces.  Patients burned in their beds, medical staff were decapitated and lost limbs, and others were shot by the circling AC-130 gunship while fleeing the burning building. At least 30 MSF staff and patients were killed.

This week, MSF concluded an initial review of the facts before, during and in the aftermath of the airstrikes. Although
our internal review is an ongoing process, we have decided to share these initial outcomes with the public,
to counter speculation and to be transparent. Details that could identify individuals have been removed. Explanatory footnotes have been added in places where an external reader may need additional clarification. This is the view from inside the hospital. What we lack is the view from outside the hospital - what happened within the military chains of command.

The facts compiled in this review confirm our initial observations: the MSF trauma centre was fully functioning as a hospital with 105 patients admitted and surgeries ongoing at the time of the US airstrikes; the MSF rules in the hospital were implemented and respected, including the ‘no weapons’ policy; MSF was in full control of the hospital before and at the time of the airstrikes; there were no armed combatants within the hospital compound and there was no fighting from or in the direct vicinity of the trauma centre before the airstrikes. What we know is that we were running a hospital treating patients, including wounded combatants from both sides – this was not a ‘Taliban base.’ The question remains as to whether our hospital lost its protected sta tus in the eyes of the military forces engaged in this attack - and if so, why. The answer does not lie within the MSF hospital. Those responsible for requesting, ordering and approving the airstrikes hold these answers.

doctors without borders afghanistan msf war