Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[crazy canuck]

At least some alleged experts on international law have disagreed that the facts demonstrate a breach of international law, though I've seen no deep analysis of the situation.


For example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/05/amnesty-ukraine-says-headquarters-ignored-concerns-incomplete/

I agree it would be interesting to see a more robust analysis than a quote from some guy's twitter account. 

[grumbler]

Nonsense, their report applied international law.  You obviously disagree with their conclusions. The reasons why you disagree would be a more interesting discussion than the claim you are now making.

Nonsense.  They don't even mention a specific element of international law that was being violated.  They used mealy-mouthed phrases like "using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law" when that is simply not true.  Rule 35 says that "Directing an attack against a zone established to shelter the wounded, the sick and civilians from the effects of hostilities is prohibited" but Rule 10 notes that "Civilian objects are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they are military objectives."  I know that this is a bit complex, but, IIRC, you work with lawyers, and one of them should be able to clarify that changing the status of something from civilian to military use is accounted for, and therefor allowed, by International Law.

The reasons why you blindly accept the claims of AI when a lawyer would know to check his sources before doing so will make a more interesting discussion than simply pointed out how wrong you are.

[crazy canuck]

Nonsense, their report applied international law.  You obviously disagree with their conclusions. The reasons why you disagree would be a more interesting discussion than the claim you are now making.

Nonsense.  They don't even mention a specific element of international law that was being violated.  They used mealy-mouthed phrases like "using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law" when that is simply not true.  Rule 35 says that "Directing an attack against a zone established to shelter the wounded, the sick and civilians from the effects of hostilities is prohibited" but Rule 10 notes that "Civilian objects are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they are military objectives."  I know that this is a bit complex, but, IIRC, you work with lawyers, and one of them should be able to clarify that changing the status of something from civilian to military use is accounted for, and therefor allowed, by International Law.

The reasons why you blindly accept the claims of AI when a lawyer would know to check his sources before doing so will make a more interesting discussion than simply pointed out how wrong you are.

You are beyond hope, but for those who might read your posts and be misled as to what actually occurred, I encourage them to read the analysis they did of each incident their investigators found of violations of international law.  There may be a rebuttal to their conclusions, but it is not found in your posts.

[The Brain]

My anecdotal experience is that when someone in an official document doesn't mention which paragraph they mean was violated, then they tend to be on very shaky ground.

[Zoupa]

AI conducted interviews with displaced Ukrainians being held in russian filtration camps.

Sounds super legit and great methodology.

[Jacob]

Seeing reports on social media that Ukrainian women and children have been trafficked to UAE.

[Valmy]

Russia has certainly grabbed onto AI's report to justify its killing of Ukrainian civilians so job well done AI.

Not that Russia or its apologists really needed AI's assistance to be fair. It's not like they are taking anything else AI has said about this war into consideration.

But it does kind of go to my issue with this is what advantage exactly would Ukraine get from using human shields in this way? Russia doesn't give two fucks. What would be the purpose of this? Kill its own people for zero advantage?

[Josquius]

Seeing reports on social media that Ukrainian women and children have been trafficked to UAE.

Not a surprise, really depressing stuff.

[Valmy]

Seeing reports on social media that Ukrainian women and children have been trafficked to UAE.

Refugees are seen as an opportunity for that industry. People can be such monsters.

[OttoVonBismarck]

AI is a defender of evil and enemy of the West. Literally nothing they do should be given any validity.

[Sheilbh]

Seeing reports on social media that Ukrainian women and children have been trafficked to UAE.

One of the grimmest stories in this war I read was in the relatively early days of organised criminal gangs in Europe picking up Ukrainian women and children refugees. I imagine there's now a lot more process but in the early days it was apparently just NGOs and volunteers etc doing safeguarding checks on each other.

Scum

[Malthus]

Russia has certainly grabbed onto AI's report to justify its killing of Ukrainian civilians so job well done AI.

Not that Russia or its apologists really needed AI's assistance to be fair. It's not like they are taking anything else AI has said about this war into consideration.

But it does kind of go to my issue with this is what advantage exactly would Ukraine get from using human shields in this way? Russia doesn't give two fucks. What would be the purpose of this? Kill its own people for zero advantage?

I don't think there have been accusations that Ukraine was deliberately using human shields - as you note, this makes no sense, because Russia does not care.

Rather, the claim is that certain acts, like having soldiers occupy schools, is an inherent breach of the laws of war. Not because the Ukrainians are hoping that the Russians won't shoot at schools, but because using them for military purposes violates the laws - whether or not Russia shoots at them.

The Ukrainian position on the use of these schools, as I understand it, is that these are not currently being used as schools - they are on the front lines, most civilians have fled, and schools are not in session anyway; and moreover, them being school buildings convey no protection against Russian attacks anyway.

Hence the complaints from the Ukrainian side (and allegedly from the Ukrainian branch of AI) that the report is lacking in critical context. They are applying the same reasoning as to why it is wrong to set up a rocket launching site over a building in which there is an active kindergarten (no using civilians as human shields) to the act of using a *building* that was once used as a school as a military outpost. I dunno what the status of the latter is in international law, but is just seems a bit of a stretch, in context, to call it a violation.

Here's a report on the protection of schools - I still can't figure out from this whether school building not currently being used as schools are universally protected against military use or not.

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/protecting-schools-military-use-2021-law-policy-and-military-doctrine

[Admiral Yi]

"Amnesty International deeply regrets the distress and anger that our press release on the Ukrainian military's fighting tactics has caused," it said in an email to Reuters.

This is getting very close to saying that Ukraine is purposely using human shields.

[Admiral Yi]

AI conducted interviews with displaced Ukrainians being held in russian filtration camps.

Sounds super legit and great methodology.

What are filtration camps?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

AI conducted interviews with displaced Ukrainians being held in russian filtration camps.

Sounds super legit and great methodology.

What are filtration camps?

That's  where Russian sort through the Ukrainians that got deported. Those that can be used will be used, the rest gets to be abused. Concentration camps basically.