While I'm on Ukraine's side, the outcry over Amnesty criticizing the Ukraine military makes me feel uneasy. I understand that this is a political game and I'm sure Oksana Pokalchuk has a point...
While I'm on Ukraine's side, the outcry over Amnesty criticizing the Ukraine military makes me feel uneasy. I understand that this is a political game and I'm sure Oksana Pokalchuk has a point claiming that Russia might use the report as an excuse to target civilians in the future. But no one can tell me the Ukraine committed exactly zero human rights violations during this conflict. It's a mark of a civilized country to acknowledge wrongdoings and correcting them by adjusting policy and punishing people responsible. I would not have lost any respect for the Ukraine's military operations if it was just for the report. But the backlash, the silencing of even the slightest criticism is concerning. Sure, Russia does worse things on probably a daily basis. But the Ukraine has international goodwill on its side and should not squander it. It's weird they expect us to believe they're flawless, that makes me suspicious of any of their actual achievements.
I don't think Ukraine's army is flawless. This is orthogonal to this report being bullshit. The report was bullshit, period - it doesn't pass the smell test, and it's been thoroughly debunked not...
I don't think Ukraine's army is flawless. This is orthogonal to this report being bullshit.
The report was bullshit, period - it doesn't pass the smell test, and it's been thoroughly debunked not just by her but by independent parties as well (example). And, it's a harmful report.
If I were to go on the internet and start complaining about things the UA army does wrong, hey, I might get some pushback but most people wouldn't care, because my voice doesn't carry. Amnesty however has a much higher responsibility, and their report is generating harm right now.
They deserve every single bit of blowback, and more.
There's been a long-term criticism of organizations like Amnesty (and the NGO/human rights world in general) that they act as a disincentive to having a free press and open democracy. Democratic...
There's been a long-term criticism of organizations like Amnesty (and the NGO/human rights world in general) that they act as a disincentive to having a free press and open democracy.
Democratic countries with a free press and open civil society, like India or even the USA, eat a ton more flack than absolutely repressive and oppressive governments like Russia or Saudi Arabia. And this happens because the journalists and opinion makers involved are scared to do the investigative journalism in those places so they don't bother going there and cultivating sources.
There is also a side-issue where, because it's disproportionately staffed by upper class, White, liberal do-gooders, there is a marked tendency to prioritize the political aims and priorities of Western upper-class liberals over the more organic concerns of the people who live in these countries. When they do engage, they will be engaging with other, international, English speaking type people of a similar socio-economic background rather than people who are really representative of the communities in question.
Governments are comprised and enforced by people. Where do you think those people come from? Where do you think they go back to when their tours of duty are done? The communities are the ones...
What power do "local communities" have against war efforts by their own government?
Governments are comprised and enforced by people. Where do you think those people come from? Where do you think they go back to when their tours of duty are done? The communities are the ones doing the fighting. When international organizations come in with random criticisms of them, all it does is has tangible effects on their access to international support but it doesn't actually contextualize the stakes or challenges they're actually grappling with. Ultimately it just turns these orgs into useful idiots for propagandists.
Oksana Pokalchuk is Ukrainian.
Note where I pointed out: "When they do engage, they will be engaging with other, international, English speaking type people of a similar socio-economic background rather than people who are really representative of the communities in question." It's a question of systemically which voices within those communities get called on and have their voices raised and which ones don't.
Sorry, but I disagree. The report got heavily politicized when, in fact, reports like this should be above politics. Amnesty doesn't go around, pointing fingers and accusing countries of war...
Sorry, but I disagree. The report got heavily politicized when, in fact, reports like this should be above politics. Amnesty doesn't go around, pointing fingers and accusing countries of war crimes willy-nilly. I highly doubt they were confused by the word "avoid".
Frankly, I also find the argument that Russia will abuse this report to be lacking: They haven't given a shit for the entirety of this war and are lying without restraint whenever it fits their narrative. The protection this report could potentially give to future civilians far outweighs its impact on any Russian truth-juggling.
They literally just did that. The report was politicised by AI. It was pushed through without consulting local branches. While Russians don’t need reports like these to spew bullshit around, it is...
Amnesty doesn't go around, pointing fingers and accusing countries of war crimes willy-nilly
They literally just did that.
The report was politicised by AI. It was pushed through without consulting local branches.
While Russians don’t need reports like these to spew bullshit around, it is doing damage to Ukraine through more western avenues. What does that look like concretely? It looks like comments like yours, right now.
Take this from somebody who’s been learning Russian for, among other reasons, the ability to read Russian propaganda more directly.
Show me evidence that they did that. Not a twitter-thread, actual analysis of the situation on the ground, as AI provided. I'm not spreading some fake news from shady facebook groups. I'm...
You have been linked several statements by the ex-head of the Ukrainian branch of Amnesty International, which you have dismissed on the grounds of her being Ukrainian thus biased. No offence but...
You have been linked several statements by the ex-head of the Ukrainian branch of Amnesty International, which you have dismissed on the grounds of her being Ukrainian thus biased.
No offence but what the fuck else do you want? End of conversation on my side, take time to reflect on this.
What? Why on earth should I dismiss her on grounds of being Ukrainian? You do not need to reply. But if we're doing reflection, reflect on dismissing a report of civilians being killed based on...
which you have dismissed on the grounds of her being Ukrainian thus biased.
What? Why on earth should I dismiss her on grounds of being Ukrainian?
You do not need to reply. But if we're doing reflection, reflect on dismissing a report of civilians being killed based on gut feelings.
I confused two of your comments. Sorry. You dismissed it without reason, which is exactly what you’re decrying here: dismissing based on gut feelings. I, and the others, aren’t dismissing “on gut...
I confused two of your comments. Sorry. You dismissed it without reason, which is exactly what you’re decrying here: dismissing based on gut feelings.
I, and the others, aren’t dismissing “on gut feelings”, but based on tangible criticism by respectful first and third parties. Criticism that, when linked, you seem to just gloss over or disregard for .. idk why.
Point is: None of this passes the initial smell test, and to me it’s extremely suspicious especially that AI explicitly didn’t reach out to their Ukrainian branch. Like, why the hell even have a Ukrainian branch then if not for this?
Let’s talk gut feelings: My gut feeling says this report was outright pushed through by malicious Russian parties inside of or in close contact with AI, but you’ll note that nowhere until now did I mention those gut feelings. I’m dismissing it with cause, and further speculate on why and how such trash would have been published despite alarm bells ringing every single step of the way.
There is no "might" about it. Russia already is using the report as an excuse, and further justification! See: https://twitter.com/mission_russian/status/1555962879563669507 As for silencing...
As for silencing criticism of Ukraine, that's fundamentally not what's going on here, at all. By all means, criticize them, so long as its fair (which this report most definitely wasn't, IMO). And nobody I know, have seen, or heard from in any authority position has claimed Ukraine is flawless either... the opposite, in fact (see all the discussion surrounding Azov), so I don't understand where you're getting that from. However, by all accounts (other than from Amnesty) Ukraine seems to be doing their best to minimize civilian casualties, treat POWs humanely, and adhere to the rules of war (which Russia most definitely isn't). But even if that wasn't so in some cases, IMO they deserve some latitude given the desperate circumstances Russia has forced upon them. Especially since, as the unprovoked aggressors, Russia deserves far more criticism in almost all things related to this war due to that, and also their abhorrent conduct thus far (see: Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol, Kramatorsk, Zaporizhzhia, etc).
And considering all the questionable decisions that were clearly made regarding the creation, timing, and release of this report by Amnesty, as well as the non-apology they issued afterwards, I think the backlash they're facing now is entirely deserved in this particular case.
Have any of you actually read the report? This isn't some high-school essay. They inspected strike sites, talked to locals, documented evidence. Unless they were literally lying (it's fucking...
which this report most definitely wasn't, IMO
Have any of you actually readthe report? This isn't some high-school essay. They inspected strike sites, talked to locals, documented evidence. Unless they were literally lying (it's fucking Amnesty International, not the Putin Express), I see zero motivation to dismiss the report. How could anyone possibly characterize the report as "fair" or "unfair", based on what evidence?
I have read it. Have you actually read and seriously considered any of the legitimate criticism against what was said in it? Because dismissing this submitted article, and the twitter thread Adys...
I have read it. Have you actually read and seriously considered any of the legitimate criticism against what was said in it? Because dismissing this submitted article, and the twitter thread Adys linked to (as you did elsewhere in this topic), is pretty questionable, IMO, especially when that thread isn't just from some random twitter user. Marc Garlasco, whose twitter account that thread is from, is a UN war crimes investigator, was a senior military advisor for the UN's International Commission on Syria, and headed the UN's Protection of Civilians office in Afghanistan... so he presumable knows what he's talking about when it comes to this subject. And in that thread he directly challenged Amnesty's claims of Ukraine being in violation of "international humanitarian law".
And incidentally, even the author of the very guidelines that Amnesty likely misrepresented (or more charitable, simply misinterpreted) as "international humanitarian law", and claimed Ukraine had violated, has publicly stated that is not the case.
Steven Haines, a professor of public international law at London’s University of Greenwich who drafted guidelines on the military’s use of schools and universities during conflicts – which 100 states, including Ukraine, have endorsed but which are not legally binding – said Ukraine’s actions had not necessarily broken them.
“The use of schools – if they are not also being used for their primary purpose – is not invariably unlawful. Very obviously, the situation in Ukraine counts as exceptional in this respect … so the Ukrainian military is not necessarily breaching the guidelines,” he said.
While Haines agreed that buildings should be chosen that are set as far apart from residential areas as possible, he said the nature of the invasion meant that city warfare was inevitable.
So no, this is not just about silencing critics of Ukraine. This is about Amnesty International releasing a report that even experts on war crimes investigations, and international law are calling both misguided and fallacious.
I'm talking about dismissing the truthfulness of the report and its value as potentially deterring future war crimes. Not any political games surrounding it. "Russia might say..." is about as...
I'm talking about dismissing the truthfulness of the report and its value as potentially deterring future war crimes. Not any political games surrounding it. "Russia might say..." is about as worthless an argument as I can imagine.
The objections in this article are procedural and so I didn’t feel like I learned much about what’s actually happening in Ukraine. Maybe someday we will get some good on-the-ground reporting about...
The objections in this article are procedural and so I didn’t feel like I learned much about what’s actually happening in Ukraine. Maybe someday we will get some good on-the-ground reporting about specific incidents.
They say in war, the first casualty is the truth. Honestly, can't wait for this mess to be over, if only to get proper documentation about what is actually going on. (Joking of course, the first...
They say in war, the first casualty is the truth.
Honestly, can't wait for this mess to be over, if only to get proper documentation about what is actually going on. (Joking of course, the first priority is to stop the slaughter.)
Another aspect aside from relatively balanced reporting on the various (alleged) war crimes and other international law violations will be an inside look at the intelligence sharing. I imagine most of these HIMARS-vs-Munitions strikes have an interesting target acquisition process leading up to them that starts in the Pentagon.
That said, the article does mention a fair amount of tangible on-the-ground conditions that were not convincingly adressed by AI. That is, the article implies heavily that AI didn't demonstrate that the placement of military installations was unnecessary, and that AI didn't demonstrate that the UA government didn't offer to evacuate civilians. I'm saying "the article implies" merely because I have not read the report.
While I'm on Ukraine's side, the outcry over Amnesty criticizing the Ukraine military makes me feel uneasy. I understand that this is a political game and I'm sure Oksana Pokalchuk has a point claiming that Russia might use the report as an excuse to target civilians in the future. But no one can tell me the Ukraine committed exactly zero human rights violations during this conflict. It's a mark of a civilized country to acknowledge wrongdoings and correcting them by adjusting policy and punishing people responsible. I would not have lost any respect for the Ukraine's military operations if it was just for the report. But the backlash, the silencing of even the slightest criticism is concerning. Sure, Russia does worse things on probably a daily basis. But the Ukraine has international goodwill on its side and should not squander it. It's weird they expect us to believe they're flawless, that makes me suspicious of any of their actual achievements.
I don't think Ukraine's army is flawless. This is orthogonal to this report being bullshit.
The report was bullshit, period - it doesn't pass the smell test, and it's been thoroughly debunked not just by her but by independent parties as well (example). And, it's a harmful report.
If I were to go on the internet and start complaining about things the UA army does wrong, hey, I might get some pushback but most people wouldn't care, because my voice doesn't carry. Amnesty however has a much higher responsibility, and their report is generating harm right now.
They deserve every single bit of blowback, and more.
There's been a long-term criticism of organizations like Amnesty (and the NGO/human rights world in general) that they act as a disincentive to having a free press and open democracy.
Democratic countries with a free press and open civil society, like India or even the USA, eat a ton more flack than absolutely repressive and oppressive governments like Russia or Saudi Arabia. And this happens because the journalists and opinion makers involved are scared to do the investigative journalism in those places so they don't bother going there and cultivating sources.
There is also a side-issue where, because it's disproportionately staffed by upper class, White, liberal do-gooders, there is a marked tendency to prioritize the political aims and priorities of Western upper-class liberals over the more organic concerns of the people who live in these countries. When they do engage, they will be engaging with other, international, English speaking type people of a similar socio-economic background rather than people who are really representative of the communities in question.
This is laughable. What power do "local communities" have against war efforts by their own government? Also: Oksana Pokalchuk is Ukrainian.
Governments are comprised and enforced by people. Where do you think those people come from? Where do you think they go back to when their tours of duty are done? The communities are the ones doing the fighting. When international organizations come in with random criticisms of them, all it does is has tangible effects on their access to international support but it doesn't actually contextualize the stakes or challenges they're actually grappling with. Ultimately it just turns these orgs into useful idiots for propagandists.
Note where I pointed out: "When they do engage, they will be engaging with other, international, English speaking type people of a similar socio-economic background rather than people who are really representative of the communities in question." It's a question of systemically which voices within those communities get called on and have their voices raised and which ones don't.
Sorry, but I disagree. The report got heavily politicized when, in fact, reports like this should be above politics. Amnesty doesn't go around, pointing fingers and accusing countries of war crimes willy-nilly. I highly doubt they were confused by the word "avoid".
Frankly, I also find the argument that Russia will abuse this report to be lacking: They haven't given a shit for the entirety of this war and are lying without restraint whenever it fits their narrative. The protection this report could potentially give to future civilians far outweighs its impact on any Russian truth-juggling.
They literally just did that.
The report was politicised by AI. It was pushed through without consulting local branches.
While Russians don’t need reports like these to spew bullshit around, it is doing damage to Ukraine through more western avenues. What does that look like concretely? It looks like comments like yours, right now.
Take this from somebody who’s been learning Russian for, among other reasons, the ability to read Russian propaganda more directly.
Show me evidence that they did that. Not a twitter-thread, actual analysis of the situation on the ground, as AI provided. I'm not spreading some fake news from shady facebook groups. I'm referring to a report published by Amnesty International based on extensive ground research under supervision by a Ukrainian lawyer and human rights activist. I won't choose between supporting Ukraine and rejecting potential war crimes.
You have been linked several statements by the ex-head of the Ukrainian branch of Amnesty International, which you have dismissed on the grounds of her being Ukrainian thus biased.
No offence but what the fuck else do you want? End of conversation on my side, take time to reflect on this.
What? Why on earth should I dismiss her on grounds of being Ukrainian?
You do not need to reply. But if we're doing reflection, reflect on dismissing a report of civilians being killed based on gut feelings.
I confused two of your comments. Sorry. You dismissed it without reason, which is exactly what you’re decrying here: dismissing based on gut feelings.
I, and the others, aren’t dismissing “on gut feelings”, but based on tangible criticism by respectful first and third parties. Criticism that, when linked, you seem to just gloss over or disregard for .. idk why.
Point is: None of this passes the initial smell test, and to me it’s extremely suspicious especially that AI explicitly didn’t reach out to their Ukrainian branch. Like, why the hell even have a Ukrainian branch then if not for this?
Let’s talk gut feelings: My gut feeling says this report was outright pushed through by malicious Russian parties inside of or in close contact with AI, but you’ll note that nowhere until now did I mention those gut feelings. I’m dismissing it with cause, and further speculate on why and how such trash would have been published despite alarm bells ringing every single step of the way.
There is no "might" about it. Russia already is using the report as an excuse, and further justification! See: https://twitter.com/mission_russian/status/1555962879563669507
As for silencing criticism of Ukraine, that's fundamentally not what's going on here, at all. By all means, criticize them, so long as its fair (which this report most definitely wasn't, IMO). And nobody I know, have seen, or heard from in any authority position has claimed Ukraine is flawless either... the opposite, in fact (see all the discussion surrounding Azov), so I don't understand where you're getting that from. However, by all accounts (other than from Amnesty) Ukraine seems to be doing their best to minimize civilian casualties, treat POWs humanely, and adhere to the rules of war (which Russia most definitely isn't). But even if that wasn't so in some cases, IMO they deserve some latitude given the desperate circumstances Russia has forced upon them. Especially since, as the unprovoked aggressors, Russia deserves far more criticism in almost all things related to this war due to that, and also their abhorrent conduct thus far (see: Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol, Kramatorsk, Zaporizhzhia, etc).
And considering all the questionable decisions that were clearly made regarding the creation, timing, and release of this report by Amnesty, as well as the non-apology they issued afterwards, I think the backlash they're facing now is entirely deserved in this particular case.
Have any of you actually read the report? This isn't some high-school essay. They inspected strike sites, talked to locals, documented evidence. Unless they were literally lying (it's fucking Amnesty International, not the Putin Express), I see zero motivation to dismiss the report. How could anyone possibly characterize the report as "fair" or "unfair", based on what evidence?
I have read it. Have you actually read and seriously considered any of the legitimate criticism against what was said in it? Because dismissing this submitted article, and the twitter thread Adys linked to (as you did elsewhere in this topic), is pretty questionable, IMO, especially when that thread isn't just from some random twitter user. Marc Garlasco, whose twitter account that thread is from, is a UN war crimes investigator, was a senior military advisor for the UN's International Commission on Syria, and headed the UN's Protection of Civilians office in Afghanistan... so he presumable knows what he's talking about when it comes to this subject. And in that thread he directly challenged Amnesty's claims of Ukraine being in violation of "international humanitarian law".
And incidentally, even the author of the very guidelines that Amnesty likely misrepresented (or more charitable, simply misinterpreted) as "international humanitarian law", and claimed Ukraine had violated, has publicly stated that is not the case.
So no, this is not just about silencing critics of Ukraine. This is about Amnesty International releasing a report that even experts on war crimes investigations, and international law are calling both misguided and fallacious.
You can’t just ignore the motivation then claim you see zero motivation.
I'm talking about dismissing the truthfulness of the report and its value as potentially deterring future war crimes. Not any political games surrounding it. "Russia might say..." is about as worthless an argument as I can imagine.
The objections in this article are procedural and so I didn’t feel like I learned much about what’s actually happening in Ukraine. Maybe someday we will get some good on-the-ground reporting about specific incidents.
They say in war, the first casualty is the truth.
Honestly, can't wait for this mess to be over, if only to get proper documentation about what is actually going on. (Joking of course, the first priority is to stop the slaughter.)
Another aspect aside from relatively balanced reporting on the various (alleged) war crimes and other international law violations will be an inside look at the intelligence sharing. I imagine most of these HIMARS-vs-Munitions strikes have an interesting target acquisition process leading up to them that starts in the Pentagon.
That said, the article does mention a fair amount of tangible on-the-ground conditions that were not convincingly adressed by AI. That is, the article implies heavily that AI didn't demonstrate that the placement of military installations was unnecessary, and that AI didn't demonstrate that the UA government didn't offer to evacuate civilians. I'm saying "the article implies" merely because I have not read the report.