Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

I've read the Amnesty International report very carefully to see what exactly they are saying.

“We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General. 

“Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law.”

The most obvious observation is that while they say they have documented a pattern, they do not provide any examples to explain the specifics of situation. How close were they to the front lines? What was their military objective? Were they trying to defend the territory or were they counter attacking? In any event, anyone who has been paying even cursory attention to Ukraine will have noticed that the Ukrainian authorities try their best to evacuate civilians from any area that looks like it will become an active warzone:

The requirement of the Fourth Geneva convention (which I think is what is being referred to as international law) is to essentially not target civilians and then to minimise, as much as possible, the risk to civilians. Evacuating civilians in advance of an attack is the most obvious and demonstrable effort to reduce civilian casualties.

The second point is that she claims that being in a defensive position does not exempt Ukraine from respecting international humanitarian law. Which is true. But it is a highly misleading statement. In the context of taking up positions in civilian areas i.e. cities and towns, being tasked with defending those cities and towns absolutely does permit the defending army to take up positions in and around those towns and cities. In fact, it would be much worse if they didn't try to defend those cities and towns.

Not every Russian attack documented by Amnesty International followed this pattern, however. In certain other locations in which Amnesty International concluded that Russia had committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv, the organization did not find evidence of Ukrainian forces located in the civilian areas unlawfully targeted by the Russian military.

This, to be perfectly frank, fundamentally contradicts the headlines. It demonstrates that taking up positions in civilian areas is not in fact a pattern. It is, at best, occasional reports of such things. It is misleading to report on it being a pattern when it is clearly not, and again their own report demonstrates that Ukraine does try to avoid civilian casualties where possible.

Most residential areas where soldiers located themselves were kilometres away from front lines. Viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians – such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas. In the cases it documented, Amnesty International is not aware that the Ukrainian military who located themselves in civilian structures in residential areas asked or assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings – a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians.

It is, to put it mildly, a shirking of responsibility by Amnesty to say that they are "not aware" of this, when it is literally all over the news, as set out above. Again, no examples of same, no specifics, no request for comment from the Ukrainians as to why they did what they did, and most importantly no effort to investigate beyond the most superficial assertions. Asking military units who are kilometers away from the front lines to sleep in the woods rather than occupy an unoccupied building is madness. As for the nearby military bases, did they consider whether those bases were being used by other troops at the time i.e. they were full and so more room was needed? If Amnesty wished to prepare a fair and unbaised report, they would have considered these matters.

Survivors and witnesses of Russian strikes in the Donbas, Kharkiv and Mykolaiv regions told Amnesty International researchers that the Ukrainian military had been operating near their homes around the time of the strikes, exposing the areas to retaliatory fire from Russian forces. Amnesty International researchers witnessed such conduct in numerous locations.

So now we do get some detail, but not particularly detailed, comment on where this was happening. In Donbas, Karkiv and Mykolaiv i.e. three front line, heavily contested areas. Here is an article that specifically refers to Kharkiv where it shows the efforts to evacuate civilians and the difficulty in same due to the Russian shelling:

In summary, 1.3m of the 1.8m residents fled. The others could not or chose not to. There were severe difficulties evacuating those with disabilities or poor mobility. Russians shelled a school that was being used as a school, and not as a military base. Most importantly, this is from the early war and shows a clear pattern - Russia comes in and bombards a civilian area, Ukraine tries to evacuate civilians and moves in troops to defend the city. It is undeniable that Ukraine has acted to reduce civilian casualties and that Russia has caused them. For Amnesty to say otherwise is completely wrong.

The mother of a 50-year-old man killed in a rocket attack on 10 June in a village south of Mykolaiv told Amnesty International: “The military were staying in a house next to our home and my son often took food to the soldiers. I begged him several times to stay away from there because I was afraid for his safety. That afternoon, when the strike happened, my son was in the courtyard of our home and I was in the house. He was killed on the spot. His body was ripped to shreds. Our home was partially destroyed.” Amnesty International researchers found military equipment and uniforms at the house next door.

This is obviously a very sad story. But what is also clear is that the family in question were trying to assist the Ukrainian defenders in the defence of their town.

Mykola, who lives in a tower block in a neighbourhood of Lysychansk (Donbas) that was repeatedly struck by Russian attacks which killed at least one older man, told Amnesty International: “I don’t understand why our military is firing from the cities and not from the field.” Another resident, a 50-year-old man, said: “There is definitely military activity in the neighbourhood. When there is outgoing fire, we hear incoming fire afterwards.” Amnesty International researchers witnessed soldiers using a residential building some 20 metres from the entrance of the underground shelter used by the residents where the older man was killed.

Again, there is no request for commentary from the Ukrainian authorities. If he wanted to know why they were firing from the cities and not from the field, there is an obvious answer - they were trying to protect Lysychansk from falling to the invading Russians, which it ultimately did. If we were to criticise Ukraine for this, as another poster said above, we may as well criticise Ukraine for not just giving up and letting the Russians take over their country. Just for balance, here is the report where it shows that the Ukranian authorities called for civilians to evacuate:

Obviously those people aren't to be blamed either, but the Ukranian authorities did their best to try to protect them, by advising them to evacuate.

In one town in Donbas on 6 May, Russian forces used widely banned and inherently indiscriminate cluster munitions over a neighbourhood of mostly single or two-storey homes where Ukrainian forces were operating artillery. Shrapnel damaged the walls of the house where Anna, 70, lives with her son and 95-year-old mother. 

I mean, holy Jesus, are Amnesty seriously blaming Ukraine for this?

“We have no say in what the military does, but we pay the price,” a resident whose home was also damaged in the strike told Amnesty International.

Did Amnesty follow up with this resident? Maybe ask why they didn't evacuate when told to do so? Maybe ask them on their views of the invading Russian army? No?

Amnesty International researchers witnessed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. In two towns, dozens of soldiers were resting, milling about, and eating meals in hospitals. In another town, soldiers were firing from near the hospital.

A Russian air strike on 28 April injured two employees at a medical laboratory in a suburb of Kharkiv after Ukrainian forces had set up a base in the compound.

Using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

If the Ukranian army was using an active hospital for military purposes, then it is a clear violation of humanitarian law. But if you read carefully what Amnesty report on, they were not doing so. They were resting, milling about and eating meals. Are Ukrainians not entitled to rest and recouperate when theyve been at the front lines? It says soldiers were firing from "near" the hospital. The report is clearly trying to imply that they were firing from the hospital, but that is just not factually true if they were "near" the hospital.

The Ukrainian military has routinely set up bases in schools in towns and villages in Donbas and in the Mykolaiv area. Schools have been temporarily closed to students since the conflict began, but in most cases the buildings were located close to populated civilian neighbourhoods 

Using schools with no pupils in them is fine.

Many of the Russian strikes that Amnesty International documented in recent months were carried out with inherently indiscriminate weapons, including internationally banned cluster munitions, or with other explosive weapons with wide area effects. Others used guided weapons with varying levels of accuracy; in some cases, the weapons were precise enough to target specific objects.

The Ukrainian military’s practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks. All parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects and take all feasible precautions, including in choice of weapons, to minimize civilian harm. Indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes.

“The Ukrainian government should immediately ensure that it locates its forces away from populated areas, or should evacuate civilians from areas where the military is operating. Militaries should never use hospitals to engage in warfare, and should only use schools or civilian homes as a last resort when there are no viable alternatives,” said Agnès Callamard. 

How mealy mouthed of Amnesty to acknowledge at the very end the indiscriminate attacks by the Russians! As if it is a mere footnote and not the actual cause of the civilian casualties. She says that the Ukrainian authorities should evacuate civilians from areas where the military is operating. But they already do that, and it is widely reported by all non biased media. The fact that Amnesty were not aware of this is appallingly negligent, to say the least. Miilitaries shouldn't use hospitals to engage in warfare, but there is nothing in the report to say that they did. They should only use schools or civilian homes as a last resort - yeah, like they've been doing!

So in conclusion, the Amnesty International report is deeply flawed for several reasons:

1. It lacks specifics
2. There is no investigation into the reasons for certain actions or a request for comment from Ukraine
3. Amnesty's local branch were bipassed in preparing the report
4. They have ignored really important evidence such as the well documented evacuations
5. They have minimised the impact of Russian indiscriminate bombing
6. They have not said whether Russia is likewise setting up positions in urban areas (hint - they are)

I will not comment on the potential motives of Amnesty International or Agnes Callamard. I do not know enough about them. It is sufficient for me to say that the report is demonstrably wrong. But of course, there is a strong temptation to speculate as to their true motives in preparing this report. I don't think I will be donating to them any time soon however!

No specific replies to the specific criticisms I made of the report, no?