Putin's problem again: the Russian Federation wants to expel from the UN and to blame him in genocide

"From now on, when Putin sits on the plane, he will have to ask: will he not deliver him to the pilot where Putin is arrested?" Opinion. In recent days, there have been several very interesting events at once. While the Americans are preparing for the spectacle of arrests and lawsuits in the lead role with Donald Trump, his patron Vladimir Putin faces much more complex legal problems. In recent days, there have been several very interesting events at once.

Yes, the wheels of justice can rotate slowly and easily disappointed when obvious crimes do not receive an immediate official sentence. However, it is difficult to recall cases where in a short period so much legal attention was paid to one dictator. So, let's repeat for clarity: 1. Creating a group of more than 30 countries that prepare the soil for a special tribunal for aggression.

Aggression is one of the main crimes subject to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, it is defined as "planning, preparation, initiation or implementation by a person (which is able to effectively control or manage the political/hostilities of the state) of the act of aggression that is in nature , seriousness and scale of apparent violation of the UN Charter.

" The crime, which is defined in this way, is committed by individuals, not states, so he apparently concerns Vladimir Putin and other high -ranking political and military figures of the Russian Federation. Of all the crimes committed in Ukraine and Ukraine, this is usually considered the simplest for trial and prosecution. Prominent lawyer Philip Sands supported this approach. In Just Security you can find a selection of articles on this topic. 2.

The emergence of the UN Human Rights Commission "The Report of the Independent International Commission on Investigation of Events in Ukraine". It has documented "intentional murder, illegal detention, torture, rape and illegal movement of detainees from territories temporarily occupied by the Russian authorities in Ukraine.

" They include "widespread torture and inhuman treatment used by Russian authorities on the detainees of people", as well as "cases of sexual and gender violence against women, men and girls aged 4 to 82, in nine regions and regions and regions and regions and regions and regions and regions and regions in the Russian Federation. " The report clarifies that rape "was made with weapons, with special cruelty and with the use of torture, such as beating and suffocation.

Criminals sometimes threatened to kill the victim or her family if she resists. " 3. Issuance by the International Criminal Court on March 17, a warrant for the arrest of Putin for war crimes. The first accusation concerns the abduction of children from Ukraine. It was one of the most horrific Russian practices that I and others tried to pay attention to the public during the year.

The issuance of the arrest warrant for arrest is the most politically significant of the recent events, as it defines Putin as the wanted suspected military offender, who is arrested in any country confirmed by the ICS (and such a majority). And this is not the signal that the Russian elites can ignore the future of their country. This impedes Putin's international trips (and not only in the direct sense of the word).

From now on, he will have to ask every time when he sat on the plane: will he not deliver him somewhere the pilot where he is arrested? The abduction of tens (or, rather, hundreds) of thousands of children is certainly a military crime. However, it should be noted that some war crimes are a genocide at the same time. The 1948 Genocide Convention gives this specific definition.

Genocide is usually considered more complicated for a crime for judicial investigation, since the Convention states that these actions should be accompanied by an intention to destroy a particular group. But this war is historically unusual in that the Russian authorities and Russian propagandists have provided an inexhaustible public flow of evidence of all their intentions. 4. Public collapse of the Russian narrative about victims.

In addition to the huge flow of cruelty, which we seem to have not to notice and take for granted, the Russian authorities are conducting another defensive strategy: it states that the real problem is a "Russophobia" of Ukrainians, which somehow justifies the invasion and all their crimes. This protective strategy seems to reveal the awareness of guilt.

During a meeting of the UN Security Council with "Russophobia", convened by Russia, I could not help but notice that no one, even the Chinese, believed that something was happening. Many diplomats clearly stated that criticism of one country in policy is not a reason for invasion and war crimes.

After speaking, I tried to bring to several basic conclusions: (1) If we were indeed concerned about the harm caused by the Russians, we should pay attention to the policies of the Russian Federation itself; (2) The statement that Ukrainians with "Russophobia" are a typical colonial attempt to displace the real experience of victims of the imperialist war.

In this context, the statement of Russian officials and propagandists about "Russophobia" is part of the arsenal of hateful statements against Ukrainians and intended to justify mass crimes, including mass murder. In this sense, it should be understood as an element of military crimes that continue, which, in my opinion, include genocide.

Given the abuse of its position in the UN Security Council and against the background of the above, grotesque to imagine that Russia will take over the presidency of the Security Council. Although someone may think that the UN does not matter whether to get confused in the web of its agencies, the UN has provided a platform for Russian propaganda for the last and more years.

The presidency in the Security Council gives the opportunity to determine the agenda and appoint meetings, which, at least, will take the necessary time, and in the worst - will distract the public from obvious crimes. It is possible to give a good argument in favor of the fact that Russia has no right to preserve the security council at all, since the Russian Federation has never formally joined the United Nations.

The Soviet Union was a permanent member of the Security Council, but the USSR is not Russia. It ceased to exist more than 30 years ago. All other post -Soviet states were either members of the UN as Soviet republics (Ukraine or Belarus), or have undergone a procedure for applying for admission. Russia has never done it. Ukrainian diplomats call Russia, which "occupies the Soviet Union" in the UN, and this wording is accurate.