Can there be "prisoners of war" if there is no "war"?

No, Geneva convention applied to lawful combatants. And russians don't fit the definition

That not how it works.

educate yourself moron
youtube.com/watch?v=9WWs5AxGRVY

Should't have revoked it
google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1WW2IN

criminals are not protected by the conventions, also Russia used to frown upon not declaring a war
youtube.com/watch?v=jm4w2n1KjfQ&t=361

That's not true at all lmao an unlawful combatant would be a mercenary or a bandit like Finn said not registered soldier of another country

Geneva convention was in 1943, not in 1900.

Btw, those guys getting kneecapped are artillery men, who shelled civilians, thus they are war criminals themselves

the problem comes here than because you haven't declared a war, how can we tell difference between you and a criminal?

dishonesty gets you nowhere mr putin

It doesn't matter if war is declared or not if a POW has clear combatant status such as uniforms, dogtags, flags, military ID then he's lawful

you're only entitled to pow status under the conventions if you're present in the military operations area as a soldier, if you're there on your own account, as a criminal, engaging in brigandage, you're a common criminal no matter what you're wearing

you seem very sure in your sources of information.
which outs you as a complete retard or shill
bad look either way

>Z
>Literally "Z"og army
How can you sheep be so blind.

It was revealed to me in a dream

Screencap this.
The Ukrainian army will never even be investigated for the possible war crimes they've committed (they might have, might not have, it doesn't really matter).
The rhetoric to justify not investigating will be this, in some elaborate form
>War was illegal
>Russians had no reason to be there
>Geneva convention applies only when the war is legal
>Sorry, not sorry, they shouldn't have invaded in the first place
>Ukraine didn't commit any war crime anyway, so the investigation would be pointless
>Loop that shit to justify the last statement

>Ukrainians and butt hurt belters be like

That's not true at all but okay, according to you a soldier who gets lost and is then captured alone would be treated as a bandit which is ridiculous

deserters who form looting gangs do not get pow protections

>revokes part of the Geneva convention that specifically forbids Russia's favourite tactics like going in without insignias, bombing civilian infrastructure and civilians themselves
>expect to be treated according to the laws of war without ever actually declaring war
Not gonna happen chief.
They invaded in 2014 without insignias, didn't declare war now or back then and are using DNP/LNR guys who at best can be classified as terrorists it is quite difficult to ascribe anything but war crimes to Russia and quite difficult to establish any case against Ukraine.

>flag

Holy shit, put some meds in burgers

>DNP/LNR guys who at best can be classified as terrorists
This. One thing that hasn't been mentioned before ITT is thst the DPR/LPR guys are not part of any recognised military. I don't know how the Conventions deal with irregular separatist militias.