• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Genocide

To all:

Has anyone considered the damage that could be done legally, politically and militarily if genocide is declared in Ukraraine? The responsibility to protect (R2P) kicks in and countries are duty bound to intervene in order to stop the alleged genocide. That means that third-party military forces would have to intervene in Ukraine which could lead to a much wider and more destructive war. Russia's conventional forces would likely be overwhelmed and Russia would likely resort to NBC weapons in ways it would be hard to predict. That would lead to an even greater slaughter.

If other powers stood by and abjured their R2P then that would weaken the gravitas of that responsibility, making it easier for other states to shirk their duty the next time they could be called upon to intervene in an alleged genocide. That weakening could also weaken the world's resolve to invoke the Genocide Convention in future alleged cases of genocide when powerful military or nuclear-armed states run afoul of the convention. Such weakening could stress alliances to a breaking point, break up political unions and foster a Neo-isolationist movement which intentionally abrogates active involvement in intervening when the basic rights of humans or groups of humans are attacked.

It seems to me that everybody should be pretty damned sure that real and provable genocide is both occuring by Russian agents and is intended by Russia in Uukraine before alleging that it is. The wider consequences of such a declaration could be cataclysmic and would dwarf the crimes against humanity which some may allege is genocide.

Would it not be wiser to stop genocide in Myanmar, in Syria, south of Syria, in China and in various places in Africa? Would that not strengthen the Genocide Convention and the R2P duty more than rolling the dice on what seems at this time to be an iffy case against the premier nuclear-armed state on the Earth; a case which would likely never be brought to trial or be able to mete out justice if genocide did eventually occur?

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.
 
I wonder if our skeptical friends, who attributed the horrendous civilian death toll to "bad aiming" as opposed to "bad aims", are now willing to modify their views in light of Mariupol, Bucha and Kramatorsk? Does evidence matter?
 
Has anyone considered the damage that could be done legally, politically and militarily if genocide is declared in Ukraraine? The responsibility to protect (R2P) kicks in and countries are duty bound to intervene in order to stop the alleged genocide. That means that third-party military forces would have to intervene in Ukraine which could lead to a much wider and more destructive war. Russia's conventional forces would likely be overwhelmed and Russia would likely resort to NBC weapons in ways it would be hard to predict. That would lead to an even greater slaughter.

Russia would have the option of peacefully withdrawing.

If not, then any international intercession ceases when Russian troops have abandoned Ukraine.

Do you realize the carnage that can transpire if nefarious nations protect an ongoing genocide with nuclear threats?
 
I wonder if our skeptical friends, who attributed the horrendous civilian death toll to "bad aiming" as opposed to "bad aims", are now willing to modify their views in light of Mariupol, Bucha and Kramatorsk? Does evidence matter?
NWRarCon:

I have not changed my position on calling the killing in Ukraine "genocide" yet. What I still see are crimes against humanity and war crimes. The tribunal for crimes in the former Yugoslavia required that harms and killings done to a targetetec group's population be done against a substantial level of that population. That threshold has not been reached yet in my opinion.

The deaths and likely intentional murders of civilians being discovered in the wake of Russian military withdrawals from Northern Ukraine are war crimes and crimes against humanity. They are likely to have been caused by many different means of killing. Some will be proved to be from direct fire or indirect artillery fire which occurred during urban fighting or bombardment of these Ukrainian towns. Other deaths certainly seem to be deliberate executions of civilians very likely done by Russian troops. All of these criminal killings should be investigated and prosecuted as war crimes and crimes against humanity. despite being killings by the hundreds in several towns; as so far these do not yet rise to the substantial level in a country with a population of 44 million like Ukraine.

So no change yet in my opinion. War is a chaotic atrocity in which human beings die in all manners of tragic ways. There is no way to avoid killing civilians in built-up urban areas except to not fight the war in the first place. Substantial evidence of genocide may come to light in the future, but it hasn't come yet. Let the investigations proceed and collect evidence in order to produce the best evidence and then decisions can and should be made about how to go forward with prosecutions. Evidence collected systematically and thoroughly does matter.

Cheers, be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.
 
Russia would have the option of peacefully withdrawing.
Rogue Valley:

True. But what assurances would Russian leaders have that military operations would not be conducted against Russian sovereign territory or air-space? Your word is unlikely to calm the paranoid minds of the Russian military and political leaderships. Therefore this is likely not a realistic option.
If not, then any international intercession ceases when Russian troops have abandoned Ukraine.
Why should Russia believe that?
Do you realize the carnage that can transpire if nefarious nations protect an ongoing genocide with nuclear threats?
Realise it? How can one not realise it, when one watches and reads reports of wholesale atrocities daily? Whether these atrocities have risen to the level of "genocide" is debatable but they are certainly criminal. However weigh the atrocities against the likelihood of a thermonuclear exchange if American, Western European or NATO troops get involved in direct combat in Ukraine and the tragedy could increase by many orders of magnitude. How many Buchas justify the destruction a Kyiv, a Berlin, a Paris, a London or a New York City? How many Buchas justify the destruction of a Minsk or a Moscow?

Historically too many wars escalate and often do so precipitously and unexpectedly. In this they need no help from those driven more by passion/emotion than by cold dispassionate reason. The death-calculus of war is appalling and dehumanising but it is also necessary to avoid a regional or global catastrophy. So yes, it is tragic and infuriating that a nefarious regime like Putin's Russia can hide behind over 6000 nuclear weapons and wage aggressive war by brutal means resulting in Ukrainian civilian bodies being stacked up like cord wood in towns and cities. But that is the reality which we face and to ignore that reality could very likely bring death and ruin to many more magnitudes of innocent civilians, through the hubristic miscalculation of how far Putin himself, the Russian military leadership and Russia itself are willing to go.

Better to let political isolation and economic warfare weaken and palsy the Russian Regime while giving Ukraine the weapons and support which they need to resist the Russians as best they can.

I am not comfortable nor proud of articulating this cautious position but it is the responsible one to take, given the risks of military escalation with nuclear-armed Russia.

Be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy
 
Realise it? How can one not realise it, when one watches and reads reports of wholesale atrocities daily? Whether these atrocities have risen to the level of "genocide" is debatable but they are certainly criminal. However weigh the atrocities against the likelihood of a thermonuclear exchange if American, Western European or NATO troops get involved in direct combat in Ukraine and the tragedy could increase by many orders of magnitude.

Then we disagree. Dictators cannot be allowed to slaughter an unlimited number of civilians under the "protection" of a nuclear threat.

I'm tired of entertaing such a warped fear-mongering premise.
 
Just because an inveterate liar and bully threatens nuclear war we're supposed to cower in the corner and wet our pants? Good God. How much lunch money was given up in your childhood?
 
Just because an inveterate liar and bully threatens nuclear war we're supposed to cower in the corner and wet our pants? Good God. How much lunch money was given up in your childhood?
NWRatCon:

Well that was a reasoned response, eh? It's debate, not berate.

Be well.
Evilroddy.
 
NWRatCon:

Well that was a reasoned response, eh? It's debate, not berate.

Be well.
Evilroddy.
Wait. Is Putin not an inveterate liar and bully?
 
There can be a reasonable debate as to whether the depravity being visited upon Ukraine is genocide or merely crimes against humanity. I've made my view clear.

What is not reasonably debatable is whether it is deliberate. It is now beyond peradventure. It is admitted, and the appointment of the butcher of Aleppo to lead the Ukrainian massacre makes it plain, undeniable, and urgent.
 
Back
Top Bottom