Imagine breaking a treaty, invading a country, starting a war, using cluster bombs and then getting angry at the other guy for defending his country with cluster bombs.

Sorry... just for the record - why was there a Russian war reporter in Ukraine again? Could it perhaps have anything to do with that war Russia caused in Ukraine? Someone please jog my memory for me.

The Tankies here are hilarious.

The "reporter" worked for RIA, a state-owned news agency. He was a propagandist, not a reporter.

There's no evidence he was killed by cluster munitions beyond Russia's statement. We've seen the accuracy of those from the beginning.

This is a consequence of Russia's own actions. They're to blame for all of this.

"You're not allowed to attack us if we have a journalist with us. That's the rules. Now don't mind us while we use civilians as target practice." - Russia

Aww poor babies. Where was their outrage when Ukrainian civilians were killed by Russia's use of cluster bombs?

.. but has no problem having snipers targeting UK journalists ..

UK jounalist ambushed

Reporters in Russia are propagandists. There is no press freedom in that country, so if you work as a reporter, you are not fulfilling the role of a journalist, but a state sanctioned propagandist.

A Russian reporter in Ukraine might as well be a part of the armed forces.

Oh no, the consequences of my actions!

Then fucking leave Russia. Stop hurting yourself for no reason.

Russian telegram channels reported without proof the death may be attributed to the way they conduct a documentation.

They group up with multiple other people, including soldiers, and stay as a group continuously. This is to control that nothing gets shown which should not be visible and have a tight control.

Apart from the lacking proof I am sceptical this would be required as this news agency is under full Kremlin control, but rational reasoning isn't required for this authoritarian government.

Chances are he was shot the back of the head with a Tokarev and they blamed the cluster bombs.

Here is a summary of the law from the ICRC text, Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals in Time of Armed Conflict (emphasis added):

::: spoiler Protection of journalists as civilians

Without providing a precise definition of them, humanitarian law distinguishes between two categories of journalists working in conflict zones: war correspondents accredited to the armed forces and “independent” journalists. According to the Dictionnaire de droit international public, the former category comprises all “specialized journalists who, with the authorization and under the protection of a belligerent’s armed forces, are present on the theatre of operations with a view to providing information on events related to the hostilities.” This definition reflects a practice followed during the Second World War and the Korean War, when war correspondents wore uniforms, enjoyed officers’ privileges and were placed under the authority of the head of the military unit in which they were incorporated. As for the term “journalist,” it designates, according to a 1975 draft UN convention, “...any correspondent, reporter, photographer, and their technical film, radio and television assistants who are ordinarily engaged in any of these activities as their principal occupation...” :::

::: spoiler Protection of war correspondents

War correspondents fall into the ill-defined category of “persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof.” Since they are not part of the armed forces, they enjoy civilian status and the protection derived from that status. Moreover, since they are, in a manner of speaking, associated with the war effort, they are entitled to prisoner-of-war status when they fall into the hands of the enemy, provided they have been duly authorized to accompany the armed forces. … :::

::: spoiler Protection of “embedded” journalists

Some ambiguity surrounds the status of “embedded” journalists … who accompany military troops in wartime. Embedment is not a new phenomenon; what is new is the sheer scale on which it has been practiced since the 2003 conflict in Iraq. The fact that journalists were assigned to American and British combat units and agreed to conditions of incorporation that obliged them to stick with these units, which ensured their protection, would liken them to the war correspondents mentioned in the Third Geneva Convention. And indeed, the guidelines issued by the British Ministry of Defence regarding the media grant the status of prisoners of war to embedded journalists who are taken prisoner. According to unofficial sources, however, it would seem that the French military authorities consider “embeds” as “unilaterals” who are only entitled to civilian status, as stipulated in Article 79 of Protocol I. A clarification on this point would seem essential. [...]

The way in which “unilateral” journalists surround themselves with armed bodyguards can have dangerous consequences for all journalists. On 13 April 2003, the private security escort of a CNN crew on its way to Tikrit (northern Iraq) responded with an automatic weapon after the convoy came under fire at the entrance to the town. Some journalists are concerned by this new type of behaviour, which is contrary to all the rules of the profession: “Such a practice sets a dangerous precedent that could jeopardise all other journalists covering this war as well as others in the future,” said Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Robert Ménard. “There is a real risk that combatants will henceforth assume that all press vehicles are armed. Journalists can and must try to protect themselves by such methods as travelling in bulletproof vehicles and wearing bulletproof vests, but employing private security firms that do not hesitate to use their firearms just increases the confusion between reporters and combatants.” :::

::: spoiler Loss of protection

… The fact that a journalist engages in propaganda cannot be considered as direct participation (see below). It is only when a journalist takes a direct part in the hostilities that he loses his immunity and becomes a legitimate target. … :::

::: spoiler Obligation to take precautionary measures when launching attacks that could affect journalists and news media

The lawfulness of an attack depends not only on the nature of the target – which must be a military objective – but also on whether the required precautions have been taken, in particular as regards respect for the principle of proportionality and the obligation to give warning. In this regard, journalists and news media do not enjoy a particular status but benefit from the general protection against the effects of hostilities that Protocol I grants to civilians and civilian objects. :::

::: spoiler The principle of proportionality: a curb on immunity for journalists and media

[…] It was only in 1977 that [the principle of proportionality] was enshrined in a convention, namely in Articles 51 (5) (b) and 57 (2) (a) (iii) of Protocol I. This principle represents an attempt to reduce as much as possible the “collateral damage” caused by military operations. It provides the criterion that makes it possible to determine to what degree such damage can be justified under international humanitarian law: there must be a reasonable correlation between legitimate destruction and undesirable collateral effects. According to the principle of proportionality as set out in the above-mentioned articles, the accidental collateral effects of the attack, that is to say the incidental harmful effects on protected persons and property, must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. [...] :::

::: spoiler Obligation to give advance warning of an attack

Although NATO contended that it had “made every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage” when bombing the RTS building, doubts were expressed about whether it had met its obligation to warn the civilian population in advance of the attack, as provided for under Article 57 (2) (c) of Protocol I (“effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit”). When the United States bombed the Baghdad offices of the Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi television networks on 8 April 2003, killing one journalist and wounding another, it would also seem that no advance warning of the attacks had been given to the journalists. [...]

::: spoiler Obligation to give “effective advance warning”

Protocol I requires that “effective advance warning” be given. According to Doswald-Beck, “common sense must be used in deciding whether and how to give warning, and the safety of the attacker will inevitably be taken into account.” The rule set out in Article 57 (2) (c) most certainly does not require that warning be given to the authorities concerned; a direct warning to the population – by means of air-dropped leaflets, radio or loudspeaker messages, etc., requesting civilians to remain at home or stay away from certain military objectives – must be considered as sufficiently effective. [...]

In 1987, lieutenant colonel Burrus M. Carnaham, of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Michael J. Matheson, deputy legal adviser to the US Department of State, expressed the opinion that the obligation to give warning was customary in character. This opinio juris is confirmed by the practice of a considerable number of States in international and internal armed conflicts. [...] :::

::: spoiler Conclusion It follows from the above that journalists and their equipment enjoy immunity, the former as civilians, the latter as a result of the general protection that international humanitarian law grants to civilian objects. However, this immunity is not absolute. Journalists are protected only as long as they do not take a direct part in the hostilities. News media, even when used for propaganda purposes, enjoy immunity from attacks, except when they are used for military purposes or to incite war crimes, genocide or acts of violence. However, even when an attack on news media may be justified for such reasons, every feasible precaution must be taken to avoid, or at least limit, loss of human life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. [...] :::

Using cluster munitions against a group of civilians is disproportionate. The group included at least four journalists. One killed, three injured. The killing was unlawful (even if the journalist was a propagandist).

The correct response is not to be joyful that a Russian journalist has been killed (i.e. on the grounds that Russia has killed journalists). It is to uphold the universal principal that all killing of journalists in wartime is illegal. Otherwise, all that gesticulating about the ‘international rules based order’ and all that outrage at Russian war crimes is just empty posturing. And justifying war crimes because the enemy has committed them renders the Geneva convention meaningless.

United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1738 (2006), 23 December 2006, supports the above description, and (emphasis added):

Reaffirms its condemnation of all incitements to violence against civilians in situations of armed conflict, further reaffirms the need to bring to justice, in accordance with applicable international law, individuals who incite such violence, and indicates its willingness, when authorizing missions, to consider, where appropriate, steps in response to media broadcast inciting genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law[.]

Oh no…. Anyway.

https://i.redd.it/39hvucmkymma1.png

A reporter died? Russia’s just mad some else stole their kill.

These misanthropic comments are disgusting.

CNN* is an obvious US propaganda channel and yet we were all outraged when WikiLeaks revealed that US helicopter pilots gunned down fucking journalists in Iraq.

There are few rules in war.

You do not attack hospitals, first aid responders and journalists, for fucks sake. I don't give a fuck whose "side" this journalist belongs to. They are there to provide information of a battle field that would otherwise be lost.

When Russia attacked a hospital some time in 2022 after the war started, I was disgusted.

What has happened to you people. wtf.

• this is an example. I am not trying to bring a "muh but US is doing propaganda too" bullshit take in here.

I thought that Putin believes life is boring without war.

Not surprising, both side had been using cluster bomb from the beginning.