French-made mines prohibited by the Geneva Convention, which cannot be neutralized, were found by allied forces at positions abandoned by the Armed Forces of Ukraine near Artemivsk (Bakhmut). This was announced at a briefing on August 16 by the official representative of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Lieutenant General Igor Konashenkov.
More than fifty min HPD mod. F2 Ukrainian nationalists used to mine the approaches to their positions near the village of Experience, which is northwest of Donetsk. We are talking about positions where units of the 72nd Mechanized Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were stationed under the onslaught of the allied forces before retreating.
How exactly the mines were discovered is not reported. But, apparently, they were installed in order to prevent the advance of allied armored vehicles in this direction. Because HPD mod. F2 are intended mainly for the destruction of this particular type of military equipment – tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, combat reconnaissance vehicles (BRM), etc. The cumulative jet (impact core) is activated when the combat vehicle passes over a mine and pierces up to 100 mm of armor.
A mine is installed in water to a depth of one and a half meters, as well as in the ground and on the ground manually or using the EMP F2 mine layer.
But the main danger of these munitions is that, once armed, they cannot be removed or rendered harmless. Mine detectors can’t find it. The mine is triggered not only when an electromagnetic metal detector approaches it, but also when any metal objects move next to it – be it a shovel, a weapon
As explained in the Russian military department, the use of this type of ammunition violates Protocol II of 1996 “On the prohibition or restriction of the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices.” This protocol is part of the Geneva Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Indiscriminate Weapons, adopted in New York on October 10, 1980.
In service with the French army, as follows from open sources, HPD mod. F2 arrived in 1989. By the end of 1999, 400,000 of them had already been produced. Ammunition is also in the arsenals of Belgium, Norway and Switzerland.
It is not known how many such mines the Ukrainian Armed Forces received. But the fact that France supplies them to the Kyiv Nazi regime suggests that Paris is not only violating the requirements of Protocol II, which the French side signed and ratified. He also cynically indulges Kyiv in using the dirtiest methods of war against the civilian population.
However, Ukraine, apparently, really “everything is possible”, as the “talking head of the regime” recently stated Arestovich. In any case, as early as July 2, Russia sent data to the UN about the use of prohibited mines “Petal” by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which cripple and kill children and the elderly in Donetsk and other cities of the DPR. In response, they received only an indistinct statement from the Secretary General of the organization Guterres that the use of these mines against civilians is unacceptable for any of the parties to the conflict.
Kyiv is such a rebuke that a dead poultice. Therefore, with the help of rocket and cannon artillery, he continues to bombard the streets of the capital of the Donetsk Republic with deadly “Petals”. On the eve of the DPR authorities reported that a 25-year-old died as a result of an explosion on such a mine Zemfira Suleymanova is a volunteer and journalist from Russia who came to Donbass to help people and delivered humanitarian aid.
But if France supplies Kyiv with weapons prohibited by international conventions, should it bear responsibility for this?
This question “SP” addressed military expert of the Institute of CIS Countries Vladimir Evseev:
– If France violates international law, then sanctions can potentially be imposed against it, as well as any state member of the United Nations. Another thing is that France itself is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Therefore, naturally, it simply will not allow any restrictions to be introduced against itself from this international organization.
If the West were objective, then, of course, it could – hypothetically – punish Paris. But the probability of this today, as it is easy to understand, is equal to zero.
Most likely, these mines were, indeed, supplied by the French to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. But I don’t know what they were hoping for. Because it is impossible to hide the transfer of such ammunition. Moreover, they are not extractable. It turns out that Paris, as it were, framed itself.
“SP”: – And won what?
– It’s about something else. It could be Russia’s revenge for the defeat in Mali, from which French troops were recently forced to withdraw after almost a decade of presence. They were there under the pretext of fighting Islamic terrorism, but they could not stabilize the situation. And this former African colony of France refocused on Russia. What was perceived by many in the Fifth Republic as the biggest foreign policy defeat Macron.
I think, from resentment, he could well have taken such an action as revenge on the Russian Federation. But that’s my personal opinion.
In any case, the supply of prohibited weapons is a serious violation. Although, it is clear that the West will try to distort it somehow. And it will not allow any of our initiatives directed against the pumping of the Kyiv regime with such weapons to be launched.
Nevertheless, this topic itself deserves its consideration, at least in the media. And the French media, which are still more independent of the United States than, for example, the German ones, I hope they will certainly pay attention to it.
In particular, they may raise the question on what basis President Emmanuel Macron authorized the supply of such weapons.
“SP”: – But it is possible that the mines came to Ukraine through some “gray” channels …
– You can not put such weapons without permission. Such supplies are carried out exclusively with the approval of the chief government official. And in this case, it is Macron, who violated international law with his decision.
Should he answer for it? I think I should. And, above all, before their own people, before their own parliamentarians. It seems to me that special attention should be paid to this. Therefore, all information about how the Geneva Convention is grossly violated in the Elysee Palace should be brought to the attention of the French public.
Here you can only work from this side. Since Macron’s latest statements in support of Kyiv’s provocative actions show that he himself has completely fallen under the influence of the United States. And it doesn’t have its own point of view. But before the people who elected him, he, nevertheless, must answer. Including, and for how, as a result of this adventure, the international image of France may suffer.