By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In Kostiantynivka, Donetsk Oblast, Russian forces have reportedly employed white phosphorus munitions, weapons known for their indiscriminate and severe burns, against a residential area. Following this attack, the city was struck by a FAB-1500 aerial bomb. The Ukrainian military stated that approximately 2,000 civilians remain in Kostiantynivka, a city that continues to face Russian assaults, including the use of first-person view (FPV) drones, which have resulted in civilian casualties.
Read the original article here
New video evidence has surfaced, purportedly showing Russian forces utilizing white phosphorus munitions in strikes on Kostiantynivka. This development has understandably sparked widespread concern and condemnation, given the devastating and indiscriminate nature of such weapons. The visual depiction, while disturbing, unfortunately adds to a growing body of information about the intense and brutal realities of the ongoing conflict.
The use of incendiary weapons like white phosphorus has unfortunately been a recurring theme throughout this war, and indeed, in conflicts throughout history. Reports and visual evidence of their deployment have circulated for years, highlighting their destructive potential. This latest footage reignites discussions about the specific munition involved, with some suggesting it could be the 9M22S variant associated with the BM-21 Grad system, a type that has previously been identified and discussed in Western media.
There seems to be some debate about the precise nature of the munitions shown. While often referred to as white phosphorus, there’s also a possibility that they could be magnesium-based incendiary rods, which produce a similar visual effect with significant smoke. The distinction is important, as white phosphorus has specific international legal implications when used as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations, whereas magnesium-based munitions are primarily classified as incendiary. The visual characteristics, such as the color of the burning material and the amount of smoke produced, are key factors in attempting to differentiate between them.
Regardless of the exact composition, the targeting of populated areas with weapons that cause widespread incendiary effects is a grave concern. International law clearly defines the use of such munitions in areas with confirmed civilian populations as a war crime. The potential for indiscriminate harm and long-lasting environmental damage is significant, creating a scenario of immense human suffering, especially if evacuation efforts are not robust.
The use of these weapons brings to mind historical instances, including their deployment during World War II, and more recent conflicts like the US use in Fallujah. The idea of such weapons raining down from the sky, cutting through trees as described in some accounts, paints a truly hellish picture. It’s particularly troubling when these munitions are employed in urban environments, where the risk to civilians is exponentially higher.
This situation also raises questions about the effectiveness of international condemnation and the response of global bodies. The effectiveness of international law and established rules of engagement is called into question when such apparent violations occur. The sentiment is that if there are no tangible consequences for these actions, it could embolden further transgressions, potentially even the use of banned biological weapons.
The discussion surrounding this incident also touches upon broader issues of how such events are perceived and reported. There’s a palpable sense that the same actions can be judged very differently depending on the actor, and a concern that a lack of strong, unified global outcry and consequence could allow such tactics to become normalized. The historical precedent of similar weapons being used by other nations and the varying international responses highlights this perceived double standard.
The nature of the munition itself, whether strictly white phosphorus or a magnesium-based incendiary, is a critical detail for establishing potential war crimes. International law distinguishes between the use of white phosphorus for creating smoke screens, which is considered a legitimate tactical tool, and its use as an incendiary weapon against human beings, which is illegal. The key distinction lies in the intent and the outcome of its deployment.
Ultimately, the appearance of this new video underscores the urgent need for a thorough and impartial investigation into the alleged use of white phosphorus or similar incendiary munitions by Russian forces in Kostiantynivka. The focus must remain on ensuring accountability, upholding international humanitarian law, and preventing further suffering for the civilian population caught in the crossfire of this devastating conflict. The implications of such actions, regardless of the specific munition, are severe and demand a robust and unified response from the international community.