I respect your points. It is sometimes hard to make the distinction between "crimes against humanity" and "genocide" as it is a question of intent. "International and humanitarian organizations, including the Council of Europe and Amnesty International, have criticized both sides of the conflict for "blatant and sustained" violations of international humanitarian law.This is a difficult topic. It does seem that certain conditions of genocide are being met, but is it intentional/deliberate genocide?
The Russian military in Ukraine is engaging in the same abhorant behaviors it engaged in with Chechnya I and II, in Afghanistan, and in Syria. The intentional targeting of civilans, civilian structures, critical infrastructure (electric/water/heat sources), and targeting hospitals, clinics, and rescue workers. I may be wrong, but I do not recall the international community, the United Nations, or the West deeming these past Russian behaviors as genocide.
Few detest Putin and the Putin regime more that I do. I would stipulate that Russian forces in Ukraine are certainly engaging in war crimes and crimes against humanity, but does Russia's atrocities rise to genocide? If we are to be consistant, then I have to say not yet. Perhaps technically it can be characterized as a form of genocide, but as a practical matter I do not believe the international community currently views it as such. With his brutal history in various wars, it should be obvious that Vladimir Putin is a mass murderer and a war criminal. I'll have to let others better versed in the Hague Convention of 1907, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the UN Charter put forth their thoughts and rationale.
I have been agreeing with you, but if the news currently coming out of Maripoul--that 3,000 Ukranians have been forced to filtration camps in Russia, and that (according to the US UN Ambassador) the Russians are drawing up lists of Ukranians to be killed or sent to camps--is true, I'm leaning toward genocide now. This is beyond war carnage.This is a difficult topic. It does seem that certain conditions of genocide are being met, but is it intentional/deliberate genocide?
The Russian military in Ukraine is engaging in the same abhorant behaviors it engaged in with Chechnya I and II, in Afghanistan, and in Syria. The intentional targeting of civilans, civilian structures, critical infrastructure (electric/water/heat sources), and targeting hospitals, clinics, and rescue workers. I may be wrong, but I do not recall the international community, the United Nations, or the West deeming these past Russian behaviors as genocide.
Few detest Putin and the Putin regime more that I do. I would stipulate that Russian forces in Ukraine are certainly engaging in war crimes and crimes against humanity, but does Russia's atrocities rise to genocide? If we are to be consistant, then I have to say not yet. Perhaps technically it can be characterized as a form of genocide, but as a practical matter I do not believe the international community currently views it as such. With his brutal history in various wars, it should be obvious that Vladimir Putin is a mass murderer and a war criminal. I'll have to let others better versed in the Hague Convention of 1907, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the UN Charter put forth their thoughts and rationale.
This is intentional destruction of a people and their culture.According to Maripoul's mayor (who says a lot of alarmist things),
On Sunday the Ukrainian city of Mariupol issued a statement claiming that its residents were being taken to Russia against their will, and a Ukrainian lawmaker said they were being forced into labor in remote areas of Russia, the Associated Press reported.
“Over the past week, several thousand Mariupol residents have been taken to the Russian territory,” the city statement said, according to the AP, adding that Ukrainians' cellphones and documents were examined by Russian troops before moving them.
Nearly 3,000 people have been taken from Mariupol to Russia since March 5, Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine said Sunday, the AP reported.
Inna Sovsun told Times Radio that, according to the Mariupol mayor and city council, the citizens are going to so-called filtration campus, "where they’re being forced to sign papers that they will stay in that area for two or three years and they will work for free in those areas," the AP added.
Filtration camps would not be good news. Wiki:
Filtration camps or filtration points (the official name) were used by the Russian federal forces for their mass internment centers during the First Chechen Wars in 1994-1996 and then again during the Second Chechen War between 1999 and 2003.
I, too, am reluctant to call something a genocide. As you note, proving motivation is a difficult task and not to be pursued lightly. Like other "hate" crimes, it is distinguishing and separating the heinous motivation from the heinous act itself.What is and what isn't genocide, and how do you prove a mass death was intentional (unless it's obvious like the Holocaust) has been debated since the term was invented. There is a reason other types of war crimes and crimes against humanity exists on the book, not everything is genocide. I am cautious with calling it a genocide at this point, but there are definitely several war crimes and crimes against humanity commited by the Russians.
For sure there have been and will be more horrific war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine but not genocide in my opinion and unless something dramatically changesThere have been other "petty tyrants" who have been as blood thirsty within their realms - Assad, Hussein, Pol Pot, Milošević - and who have directed their ire against minorities within their country. But it is a special kind of evil ambition that motivates one to spread that poison abroad.
Hardly a slight diversion. More of the same drumbeat, over and over and over again. Diversion is the point. THAT got old months ago. Got any other arrows in your quiver?I slight diversion to make the point
Hardly a slight diversion. More of the same drumbeat, over and over and over again. Diversion is the point. THAT got old months ago. Got any other arrows in your quiver?
There's no substance, really, to your tirades. Did you even bother to read any of the references? I've never seen evidence of it.
That's a good precis and a sound argument. I happen to disagree with the conclusion, however. My argument accepts all of your assertions:The crime of Genocide is a very tricky case to make. Ukraine is in a war for its national survival and Russia is the aggressor/invader with the intention to seize and likely annex land as its motive. That is a war crime but it is not genocide.
But, as with any such analysis, the question is, why? You positRussia is getting hurt badly by Ukrainian soldiers and armed civilliancombatants and has thus decided to change its tactics and strategy. It is now relying more on inaccurate artillery/rocketry fire and missile/air strikes to mete out much higher attrition rates on the Ukrainian military and civilian population which is resisting Russia en masse.
Again, a good argument, but incomplete.Remember civilian Ukrainians are making Molotov-cocktails and IEDs and Ukrainian grannies are on media record saying that they would gladly kill Russian soldiers or even Vladimir Putin himself. Thus the line is being blurred between civilians and combatants in this total war conflict. Add to that blurred distinction that much of the fighting is taking place in densely populated and built-up urban areas and you have a recipe for great numbers of civilian deaths and casualties without needing any intention of genocide.
Here, I'm afraid, you are incorrect. That was credibly claimed to be genocidal at the time.When the Russians levelled large parts of Chechnya in the Chechen Wars of the 1990's their tactics then were not deemed to be genocide even though they are the same tactics being used now in Ukraine albeit on a potentially much lager scale. So why was it not genocide then but is genocide today?
I wanted to start this thread in the Loft to keep the temperature down, but the word itself is a magnet for strong responses. There has been a lot of rhetoric, informed and not, about what "genocide" is, and whether it is occurring in Russia's operation in Ukraine. I thought putting it in context was important to inform the discussion.
"Genocide" as a term was coined in 1944. It was a significant basis for the post-war prosecutions of Nazis as a "crime against humanity". The understanding of the concept has been clarified and codified in International Humanitarian Law in the ensuing decades, and the subject of discussion for many philosophers and lawyers.
It was first recognized as a crime by the UN General Assembly in 1946 and codified as a crime in the Genocide Convention in 1948, and the Rome Statute adopted 50 years later, pursuant to which, "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Elements of the crime
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide." UN
This, I think, is the crux of your argument (correct me if I misinterpret).So why was it not genocide then but is genocide today?
No, but...When the US-led Coalition levelled the Syrian city of Raqqa was that genocide?
Raqqa is a poor example, as it was in the throes of being systematically dismantled by ISIS at the time. The prejudices of individual soldiers, while individually reprehensible, do not meet the definitions cited earlier, do they? You're getting off track, my friend. But, I'll clarify: genocide is specifically directed at the intent of leadership.American troops were on record as calling the Arab population dehumanising terms such as "Sand-niggers"
Again, missing the point. Distinction is a separate issue from deliberate targeting. I'm on record in lamenting put targeting discipline and it being a potential war crime. This is not that, as I explain below.and prior to Raqqa there was ample evidence that the coalition did not well distinguish between civilians and combatants in places like Fallujja and al-Nasseriya in Iraq.
this is true...So the claim to genocide becomes much harder to make when many sides in many conflicts use the same indiscriminate tactics to bust cities.
and I would agree with that assessment you haven't made...I would also mention a certain Middle Eastern state and its regular attacks on adjacent populations in 2008, 2012 and 2014 to date but three, which have not been declared as genocide as a further complication to this argument
Again, wrong tree. Not relevant. Nor is the bombing of WWII or Vietnam, as precision bombing was practically nonexistent.Look at what Curtis LeMay did to the North Korean civilian population with UN-sanctioned American air power. This air campaign killed about 1.4 million North Koreans or about 20% of the population. The vast majority of these victims were Korean villagers and not combatants. A similar case can be made for the UK in Oman or Sarawak in the 1960's or for America in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos where more than a million civilians were killed in the 1960's-1970's.
Here I strongly disagree, as that intent is the sine qua non of the charge. That is the point of my argument.Denying Ukraine's right to exist as a sovereign state as Mr. Putin has done does not meet the threshold for genocide in my opinion.
Deportation has already occurred, reportedly, and explicitly attempted.However if he starts using chemical or biological weapons on civilian-packed cities or towns in the conflict or starts liquidating civillian populations in conquered areas or begins mass forced transportation/migration of Ukrainians then I think the threshold can be quickly met.
Hear, hear.However waging aggressive war is the highest war crime and in a perfect world Mr. Putin would be dancing on air from a gallows for that crime alone.
Too, too true.Many more war crimes and atrocities are piling up too so Putin is most definitely not without blame in Ukraine. He needs to be punished for this naked aggression severely but has the luxury of hiding behind over 6000 nuclear weapons.
Had you only stopped there I'd say it was a rational, respectful discussion.For sure there have been and will be more horrific war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine but not genocide in my opinion and unless something dramatically changes.
It helps to understand the underlying ideology behind Putin and the words he uses. Some are very easy like the confederates and the nazis since you can use their own words to establish intent.What is and what isn't genocide, and how do you prove a mass death was intentional (unless it's obvious like the Holocaust) has been debated since the term was invented. There is a reason other types of war crimes and crimes against humanity exists on the book, not everything is genocide. I am cautious with calling it a genocide at this point, but there are definitely several war crimes and crimes against humanity commited by the Russians.
Yeah but, like with the excuse in mid-river from the scorpion stinging the frog that was carrying it across, it's in his nature.Had you only stopped there I'd say it was a rational, respectful discussion.
I completely agree that there are numerous examples, including quite shameful periods in American history (the trail of tears comes immediately to mind) that, if the term had existed then, would apply to that behavior.My understanding of what genocide means was defined by what the Nazi regime planned, and to a substantial part carried out, for and on the Jews of Europe and elsewhere.
This may indeed blemish/bias any attempt on my part to reach a more precise and thus particular understanding of the term/act, where applied to situations that do not equate in a one-on-one manner.
Seeing that the act itself clearly pre-dates the year it was officially termed (as in the OP), I'd thus apply the term to "Old Hickory" having "traded" small-pox infected blankets to the Cherokees, Creeks and others, seeing how the ultimate goal could clearly be seen as eliminating those indigenous people altogether, no matter the extent of actual and eventual success.
That is just one example and not intended to add to the general America-bashing that some other posters her are prone to engage in, history offers plenty of others, especially in more recent history and all over the world.
With all that said, I'd agree that the intent to apply the term has to be complete elimination of a people that can be seen as such by having a common ethnicity, language, religion, nationality or cultural communality.
Race may often be involved but need not be.
So in that spirit I hesitate to apply the term genocide to what the Kremlin has instructed wrt Ukraine, while the Kremlin's own lying claim of Russians in Ukraine being subjected to genocide by Kyiv actually deserves derision.
I hold that the term involves killing wholesesale with the ultimate goal of "killing all" and I do not see any intention on Moscow's side to kill every Ukrainian that exists.
Much different from Saddam gassing the Kurds or the Hutu's murderous rampage against the Tutsi, where the attempt to wipe both victim groups off the face of the earth could clearly be seen. .
But also(a) Killing members of the group;
I would submit that destroying infrastructure and targeting civilian locations are intended/calculated to induce inhumane conditions (freezing, starving, dehydration, lack of medical care, prohibiting escape) and deliberately calculated to inflict mental anguish and death on a specific group based upon their belief in a separate nationality.(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Emphasis mine)
So the crime is much broader than simply killing. With this in mind, would you see the issue more broadly?(a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.
Well, to cut thing short, I already addressed my possible bias perhaps blemishing my definition of the term in face of how the Genocide Convention or Statute of Rome defines.I completely agree that there are numerous examples, including quite shameful periods in American history (the trail of tears comes immediately to mind) that, if the term had existed then, would apply to that behavior.
Where we part ways, and I want to emphasize specifically, is the statement "I hold that the term involves killing wholesesale with the ultimate goal of "killing all" and I do not see any intention on Moscow's side to kill every Ukrainian that exists." I appreciate the approach. That is certainly the starting point for discussion. It's precisely why I started this thread.
My objection is that that is far too narrow a definition, and not the one used by the Genocide Convention or the Rome Statute. Killing is expressly not required, nor is total extermination. Indeed, Article 2 of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as
"... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:"
So, the target is identified (the intent to destroy, in whole or in part) and the object is stated (a national, ethnic, racial or religious group), as are the methods (acts),
But also
I would submit that destroying infrastructure and targeting civilian locations are intended/calculated to induce inhumane conditions (freezing, starving, dehydration, lack of medical care, prohibiting escape) and deliberately calculated to inflict mental anguish and death on a specific group based upon their belief in a separate nationality.
Article 3 defines the crimes that can be punished under the convention:
So the crime is much broader than simply killing. With this in mind, would you see the issue more broadly?
(a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.With this in mind, would you see the issue more broadly?
Had you only stopped there I'd say it was a rational, respectful discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?