The Russians were delighted. What happened to Amnesty International? - American military historian
Amnesty International, apparently, acted in response to a coordinated pressure campaign by pro -Russian trolls, which indicate that a dawn, fearless critic of Vladimir Putin once shared some Russian nationalist views. In May, the organization retreated, calling a "prisoner of conscience" and apologizing for the removal of this status. Video of the day, Amnesty International seems to have learned anything from what would have become a sober experience.
She still demonstrates the confusing and inadmissible bias about Putin's enemies. The other day, the organization made a morally short -sighted statement, which accused the Ukrainian forces of "violation of the laws of war" by "creating bases and operation of weapons systems in settlements, in particular in schools and hospitals.
" The Russians who resolved the uncontrollable aggressive war were admirable, and Ukrainians who fight for their country's rescue from a merciless and bloodthirsty enemy were also predictably concerned. The head of the Ukrainian office Amnesty Oksana Pokalchuk was dismissed, writing on Facebook that the organization did not give the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine enough time to respond to the accusation.
"The organization created a material that sounded as support for Russian narratives," Pokalchuk said. "As a result of a study that seeks to protect civilians, it has become a tool for Russian propaganda. " In fact, the Russian mission in Geneva wrote in Twitter that "when civil (house) is used for military purposes, it turns into a legitimate goal for a high -precision strike. Ukraine continues to do it, but now even @amnesty can't handle it.
" The Russian Embassy in London, which recently called on the execution of Ukrainian prisoners of war, intervened, saying that Amnesty's report is exactly what Russia has been saying all this time. I hope that employees, executives and members of the Amnesty Board of Directors at least have enough moral sense to feel embarrassed because their research is being used to justify war crimes.
Amnesty herself is leading the chronicle of barbaric actions of Russia, noting that "using a non -selective weapon, such as cassette ammunition in settlements, in particular in cities such as Kharkiv and Chernihiv, Russian forces killed civilians and destroyed residential buildings, including multi -dwelling houses. " And yet, Amnesty suggests that Ukraine has somehow aroused this horrific cruelty by placing troops in its cities.
What did Ukraine do? Do not protect their cities and allow Russia to occupy them without a fight? This would simply be the horrors of the Russian occupation, which resulted in the accusations that deserve trust, killings, rapes, robberies, mass deportations and other vile crimes. It is true that one of the reasons why the Ukrainian armed forces are fighting in urban areas is that these areas have strong defensive positions.
But it is unlikely that international law obliges Ukraine to give its cities. Mark Garlasto, a veteran of investigation of war crimes, wrote on Twitter that Amnesty International has misunderstood the laws of war: “Ukraine can place troops in the areas they protect, especially in cities. There is no need to stand side by side in the field-now is not the 19th century. " Ukraine is indeed responsible for the protection of civilians from hostilities as far as possible and it does it.
The Ukrainian authorities urge and even orders civilians to leave the areas who have attacked Russia and helps them to do so, despite the constant threat of bombing. (In April, the Russian rocket hit the station filled with refugees in eastern Ukraine, resulting in at least 50 people killed). There is no data on deliberate attacks of Ukrainians on civilians in Russia -occupied cities, such as Kherson, as Russians usually do in Ukraine.
Ukrainians also did not use civilians as a living shield to restrain attacks, as are often done by groups such as Hamas and the Islamic State. In fact, such tactics will be absolutely ineffective against Russian generals who do not care about the lives of their soldiers, and even more so about Ukrainian citizens. Amnesty International is guilty of victims, assuming that Russian attacks on urban areas are somehow justified by the presence of Ukrainian defenders.
Later, after the scandal, Amnesty published a statement stating that she "deeply regret suffering and anger" that has summoned her report, but "we fully support our conclusions. " Anges Callarm, Amnesty Secretary General, only exacerbated the situation with her compassionate tweet, which accused "Ukrainian and Russian bandits and trolls on social networks" of the "attack on @amnesty investigation" and the spread of "military propaganda, misinformation and inaccurate information.
" So now Amnesty blames not only Russia but also Ukraine of misinformation? This is another evidence that the false logic of moral equality was deeply rooted in the mind of Amnesty International. It is a pity that Amnesty undermines confidence in itself, because it undoubtedly brings a lot of benefits, exposing human rights abuses all over the world.