Ooh noo ;c what is happening? This is sad.
Very good art. There is always a story behind it.

based

Damn...this is beautiful but fucked up at the same time

I'm always on the lookout for drawings that show a story.

At first glance, it looks like a scene in an Eastern conflict zone. However, the spaceships only deepen the intrigue. The fires in the background and the bullet holes behind the soldier would suggest the aftermath of recent conflict. It is obvious this is not their land and the civilians are being herded. That could be the back story and setting.

This scene presents some questions The soldier is looking back in sadness, is he having doubts about what's happened/happening? What is his attachment to the kid? Is he going to protect him? It certainly set the atmosphere.

EXCELLENTLY DONE⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

First thing that comes to mind what appears to be mass execution of civilians or disarmed combatants, unacceptable all the same. Although if that were the case, it does not make any sense for the kid to be separated when any country depraved enough execute its prisoners would lump the kid in too.

What fits the scene most would be rounding up of everyone and comparing biometrics and IDs to one or more databases, likewise searching and clearing the village entirely before packing up and hitting the next place or returning to base. Given all the bullet holes, there were likely combatants mixed with civilians and a real mess to sort out. It's not unusual to separate kids or groups of people when questioning detainees, it makes them more compliant and usually they are kept in sight but out of earshot. That would be the more optimistic side of me speaking.

The realist side. . . Maybe it was just dissidents of the government and one of them was the parent of the child, probably the one lying on the ground whom was either shot or executed for one reason or another and dragged back, given the blood trail. This is reality when government exceeds the power of the people to restrain, it brings destruction both at home and abroad. It is reality for countless people but kept out of sight of the general public unless showing it serves an agenda.

People on the battlefield are still people none the less and the boots on the ground still have a moral compass, especially the religious, although I knew a few that seemed to have misplaced theirs; needless to say, we didn't get along.

This is stuff I don't want to see here but is probably inevitable; keep your powder dry.
--
Perhaps the artist can chime in as to the context of this scene?

Seeing that there is an APC there, they are probably gunning down irregulars/ militia as is currently stated in the Geneva convention towards the treatment of non-uniformed combatants. The kid was probably someone in the village that maybe might of had some connection to the irregulars or the irregulars took the settlement and they came; liberated the settlement and gunning down the irregulars.
Yet again, there are some dead but none of the soldiers have their arms at the ready. They are on sentry duty so maybe this is after a brief gunfight.

This image still stings to look at a year later.

Perhaps they are on guard duty but I think that is only part of it since the guard leaning in to the two separated from the rest of the detainees is leaning in slightly and gives an imposing vibe. The title of the work implies the kid shouldn't look back likely because the one lying on the ground with the blood trail was shot and yes, there is a relation. Those two are two bound, blindfolded, and separated, rather than having their hands over their head and one is dead or wounded. Since his head is off the ground a bit, I'd wager he's still alive and the occupying forces have a duty to treat his wounds but aren't for whatever reason (if any). Then again, the amount of blood loss means he's probably on deaths door.

I'll touch on the Geneva conventions since you brought them up. All of the Geneva conventions apply, not just the first or the fourth, all of them are in effect and govern different aspects of warfare. Militia, resistance fighters, organized forces or "illegal combatants / terrorists" are protected as well. Committing atrocities does not dissolve the POW protections, neither do they cease because an occupying power refuses to recognize and abide by the agreement.

The Geneva convention(s) are supposed to limit the barbarism of warfare and nowhere in any of the ratified documents is there an an article authorizing the execution of prisoners, irregular or not. In all four Geneva conventions, (Article 3) expressly forbids battlefield executions: "d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." The closest thing allowed to an execution is the death penalty and that still requires a trial and is delayed by six months.

The Geneva conventions explicitly declare protections for all person(s) captured and there are four specific rules outlined for militias and organized resistance to follow in order to qualify for official "POW" status, but militia still have protections regardless of status. (Third convention, Prisoners of war, Article 4) Militias are subject to military tribunal and if recent history is any indicator, a fair trial for anyone not supported by the occupying power is effectively impossible. Habeas Corpus still applies to anyone detained by The United States but we know how that gets side stepped at every opportunity.

(First convention, Article 46) Expressly forbids Reprisals against the wounded, sick, personnel, buildings or equipment protected by the Convention are prohibited. This one might be hard to accept for many but what is done on an active battlefield is fair and can't be punished after the fact. (First convention Article 50 & 51) Willful killing, torture, and preventing the absolving of liability for crimes. Unfortunately, the victors rarely get punished for war crimes, as we saw in the aftermath of WW2 when the USA, French, Yugoslavians, Russians, etc, committed the full spectrum of atrocities but rarely saw any punishment. The Geneva conventions are great but in practice they are likely to only be willfully upheld by high-trust peoples. That said, what is good and right supersedes any law or treaty.

The education / training in the military branches on the law of land warfare is effectively non-existent and as I recall was naught but a single power point presentation / class. You will not find any classes on the US Constitution, Habeas Corpus, Geneva conventions, or even basic ethics. I left a pocket book that contained the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution in the commons room (barracks) and a $10 bill in it as a reward to anyone who would open it of their own accord. That book eventually found its way back into my possession, and the $10 was found by my father years after the fact when the book came home with me; that is the state of affairs.

Alright, I've babbled enough. This subject matter crosses over with a great deal of other subjects, as well as a few principles; discussing it could fill several books and I'll refrain from clogging up the comment section with anything larger.