August 15, 2022
last edits 8/16
"Putin's Propagandists" at "Scamnesty" International
On August 4, Amnesty International published a short, general report on how Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians.
Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today. ... “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.
.png)
* a village south of Mykolaiv, 10 June: a 50-year-old man was killed in a rocket attack on Ukrainian soldiers based next to his home, whom he was bringing food to.
* Lysychansk: attacks killed at least one older man at a shelter Ukrainian soldiers were based just 20 meters from.
* the Mykolaiv area, early July: a farm worker was injured in attack on an agricultural warehouse Ukrainian forces were based in
* a suburb of Kharkiv, 28 April: two employees at a medical laboratory-turned army base were injured in a counter-attack.
* east of Odessa: Russian strikes near occupied schools "killed and injured several civilians between April and late June – including a child and an older woman killed in a rocket attack on their home on 28 June."
There are more egregious examples around (see below), but anyway, the report correctly notes:
Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure.
"Amnesty International contacted the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence with the findings of the research on 29 July 2022. At the time of publication, they had not yet responded." Critics complain 5 days wasn't long enough, but it's odd how they couldn't use even that time to scrape together any response except maybe to have their local branch block the report's publication ("the representatives of the Ukrainian office did everything they could to prevent this material from being published." - resigning branch chief Oksana Pokalchuk), at least until they commented, and they probably meant to never comment. The plan B they went with, I guess, was to go on a shrill and overwhelming attack when it did come out.
President Zelensky explained in a speech shared on Telegram how the Amnesty report was an "unacceptable" bit of victim-blaming that seeks "to Amnesty a terrorist state." An editorial in the Kyiv Independent would summarize: "Ukraine’s leaders were rightfully outraged by the report. President Volodymyr Zelensky called the report an attempt to "shift responsibility from the aggressor to the victim." Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said the report creates “a false balance between the criminal and his victim. Between a country that kills civilians by hundreds and thousands, destroys cities, and territories and a country that defends itself by saving its people and the entire continent from this invasion.” The accusation was Ukraine "saves itself" partly by misusing protected areas and endangering civilians (up to and perhaps including use of human shields). But he re-words that as "by saving its people and the entire continent."
Amnesty International's Ukraine chief resigned, with sharp public comments, immediately following the report's publication. Atlantic Council: "Oksana Pokalchuk took to Facebook on August 4 to disavow the report, explaining that Amnesty’s global branch had effectively sidelined the Amnesty Ukraine team and proceeded with publication without their input or consent." As noted, their input was to block its publication. "She resigned the following day, writing, “Although unwillingly, the organization created material that sounds like support for Russian narratives. Seeking to protect civilians, the study has instead become a tool of Russian propaganda.”
Others were less generous on the "unwittingly" part. The Times asked "Why is Amnesty International feeding Russian propaganda?" and also answered it's because they were "Putin's propagandists" or, as the Daily Mail put it, "Vladimir Putin's mouthpiece" Random commentator Jay in Kyiv would tweet to hundreds of likes, upon yet another Amnesty report criticizing Russian actions "Scamnesty noticed that being bought by the propaganda arm of a terrorist state can be bad for business." He suggests that this was too little too late after they dared to just once criticize Ukraine.
.png)
Bloomberg's Clara Ferreira Marques penned an opinion piece that was headlined "Amnesty’s Impartiality Plays to Russia’s Advantage." In this information war, partiality is expected. We can't afford luxuries like truth and balance, not even in limited doses like this. Marques sees Amnesty's report as the behavior of "useful idiots" or people who unwittingly help Russia. "too many adherents of both the far left and right in Europe and the US — in search of balance, or angry with Western wrongs — have provided the Kremlin propaganda machine with fuel," and this report was a prime example.
Marques repeats a common distortion as "perhaps the most worrying aspect of all" - "the response from Amnesty International’s secretary general. Agnes Callamard at first rejected allegations of bias, but" then she tweeted about “attacks” "coming from Ukrainian and Russian social media mobs and trolls,” thus confirming such a bias (or so the contrast suggests). "Reasonable questions, including from Amnesty’s own team, deserve credible answers, not arrogance. Finding balance in the fog of war while retaining trust requires openness, not an effort to dig in." Yeah, and preaching like this requires reading comprehension., Of course the quoted tweet was responding to recent and vitriolic attacks by mass-mobilized social media disruptors. She had to mention Russian trolls, basically, to introduce the idea there was a "Ukrainian" versions of the same thing, who of course were the ones mainly attacking her. She was not referring to every critic of the report as a "troll," but people on the attack in a propaganda war have to ignore details like that. Posner, AC: "Among the “mob” of critics are such prominent figures as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy," and another was the head of Amnesty Ukraine, etc.
This "balance-seeking" and "both-siding" had gone too far and needed reined in. Callamard required a job loss and some punitive character assassination, to help set an example. Amnesty was called "morally bankrupt" and "imperialist," with suggestions it was controlled by Russian donors, in sore need a financial boycott and a leadership change, or perhaps to be disbanded entirely. An editorial in the Jerusalem Post seemingly took this as a last straw after years of AI criticizing Israel's apartheid policies: "It's time for Amnesty International's candle to be extinguished." What else can be done for a group that "synchronized with the Russian terrorist state to carry out an information warfare attack on the Ukrainian people."? (Michael MacKay on Twitter) Some folks helpfully put the Russian Z where it belonged now.
Not everyone sees it quite this way. Paul Taylor at Politico seems to grasp the problem as he urges saner minds not to go with the mob here: "consider Amnesty’s message, don’t shoot the messenger". "Some see a pattern here of pro-Russian or anti-Western bias. As even a cursory glance at Amnesty’s publications on Russia demonstrates, however, this is nonsense." Michael N. Schmitt at West Point military Academy wrote "Much of the criticism directed at Amnesty International is unfair or misguided. Some critics claim the report displays bias. Yet, Amnesty International has frequently condemned Russian actions. Even the report in question did so (e.g., its indiscriminate attacks). To suggest Amnesty International is biased against Ukraine is simply unfair."
It's unfair and also stupid. In fact, AI broadly have the usual, required anti-Russia bias, just not a strong enough one for some people. Caitlin Johnstone pretty well nailed it, as she often does.
The underlying premise behind these complaints, of course, is that it is Amnesty International's job to help Ukraine win a propaganda campaign against Russia. Which is odd, because Amnesty's reporting on the war has actually been overwhelmingly biased in favor of Ukraine this entire time.
"Anger directed at Amnesty is surprising given that it is the first critical piece the group has written on Ukraine since the war began," reports Unherd. "Over the last six months, Amnesty has published 40 articles on Ukraine, nearly all of which condemn Russia’s invasion, with only one exception — its latest — that could be conceivably described as critical of Ukraine."
Even the Amnesty report currently sparking all the outrage contains repeated condemnations of Russia's actions in Ukraine, citing "indiscriminate attacks by Russian forces" and "war crimes" Amnesty has found Russia guilty of committing, as well as decrying the use of "inherently indiscriminate weapons, including internationally banned cluster munitions."
But even ninety-nine percent loyalty to the official line is not enough for imperial spinmeisters and the empire's useful idiots. Anything short of 100 percent compliance counts as Russian propaganda.
That kind of absolutist thinking is just what we see in this blitzkrieg of threats from people who obviously have poor reading comprehension or little basis in reality - "Useful idiots," you could say, if anyone but Russia had those. However they get steered into it, these thugs will push further and further from reality. Ukraine could probably pack all its ethnic Russian citizens into death camps and it would be Amnesty's responsibility to deem that a legitimate defense, ignore it, or better yet to blame the Russians. And anyone who disagrees should be penalized or regime-changed until no one dares to disagree. That's how you properly one-side this stuff.
However, the very thug tactics meant to shock and awe Amnesty et al. into blind surrender of moral principle should be seen as giving away their game. Decent people cannot bend to this mentality.
Some Analysis of Lodged Points
The gist of the critics' position is: Ukraine was invaded and it was by evil Russia, so as the victims and defenders, they cannot legitimately be held to account for anything. If there are any Ukrainian crimes beyond absolute necessity - and "absolute necessity" must be read as infinitely wide - well, that should not be reported anywhere within Russia's earshot - which is anywhere the public might also hear it. If the truth suits Russia's purposes, then don't speak the truth. And if we don't hear the truth, then we won't know it, and Ukraine wins.
They whine about "blaming the victims" where "the victims" are the Ukrainian military and political leadership drafting and implementing the policies in question, and where "blaming" means subordinating their version of events for one based on actual international law, field observation and testimony of the actual victims of attacks, the very human shields who took blows meant for the military. The Ukraine trolls freely "blame" the real victims by subordinating their version of events as a bunch of lies told under pressure from the Russians.
Amnesty report:
Throughout these investigations, researchers found evidence of Ukrainian forces launching strikes from within populated residential areas as well as basing themselves in civilian buildings in 19 towns and villages in the regions. The organization’s Crisis Evidence Lab has analyzed satellite imagery to further corroborate some of these incidents.
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.
Refuted: Wayne Jordash and Anna Mykytenko at Euromaidan Press bemoan the report's supposed "failure to offer any explanation of the alleged “viable alternatives.” Acknowledging some types were mentioned, they rebut "Forests, military bases, or locations cannot be chosen merely because they are remote from civilian populations. They are chosen (or not) because they meet a particular defensive objective – if not, the defence will fail." Well, duh. But Amnesty never said remoteness was the only factor to consider, just a crucial one. Some remote locations won't work, but some - which they called "viable" - would work fine. And yet Ukrainian forces opted to use places, often "kilometers away from the front lines," that also posed a greater danger to civilians - maybe because of the danger they get to spread, with no accountability.
Lillian Posner at the Atlantic Council wrote "Flawed Amnesty report risks enabling more Russian war crimes in Ukraine." pointing out: "Some of the expectations expressed in the Amnesty report, such as the notion that Ukrainian troops should defend civilians from Russian attack without stationing themselves nearby, are nothing short of absurd." Why this absurdity was ever made international law seems beyond Posner, but she'll expect the Russians to abide these laws while exempting Ukraine.
Sarah Teich and Shuvaloy Majumdar, National Post: "Opinion: It is Amnesty International and Russia, not Ukraine, that are putting civilian lives at risk": "Ukrainian forces may be launching attacks from within civilian areas, but that is precisely because Russian forces are attacking those areas" Simply flipping the alleged cause and effect doesn't make sense in this case.
An editorial in the Kyiv Independent - "It is Amnesty International’s report that endangers Ukrainian civilians" - complains "avoiding residential areas, during intense urban fighting in Donbas" is "absurd." Essentially, Amnesty International is asking Ukrainian troops to surrender or be killed." ... "Given Russia is constantly and mercilessly targeting civilians, it would be impossible to defend any city if Ukrainian troops are in a field somewhere." Repaired: Given that Ukraine decides to "defend" civilians by attacking Russians from between them, Russia is "constantly and mercilessly targeting" those civilians.
Amnesty and their present attackers have frequently agreed vin the past on criticizing Russian forces basing in civilian areas, understanding the danger that introduced. Or: Everyone knows it's the Russians who should be shooting from an open field and just letting themselves be killed. President “There cannot even hypothetically be any condition under which a Russian strike against Ukraine becomes justified,” Referring to no actual law but to a mood or a theory of exceptionalism or supremacy, Zelensky says if the Russians are shot from any location, they should just take the hits until they are dead. The fact that they don't do this proves their evil and genocidal intent, to this former professional clown.
In fact, neither side can be expected to do that, and neither side does it. They take shelter in buildings, attack each other from buildings, and attack back against those buildings. Only some special war buildings were made in advance (military bases) and they won't always be at the strategic points that will emerge in battle. So both sides will be using other structures, with schools working especially well, and factories too, with even less complications. And the rules allow for this. Just where and how it's done seems to be key.
The Amnesty report could be faulted for not seeming to get that point, and being (or at least reading as) overly "textbook" about it all.
It's said the report "ignores" how Ukraine often tries to evacuate areas of fighting, and indeed that isn't mentioned. Instead, the report says "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." In many places, they probably do evacuate people, but in other cases ... well, it wasn't evident that they did. And Amnesty had a pretty good view in the cases they looked at.
This seems like a valid area of concern, but as the critics note, it come with additional details like how people don't always WANT to leave, and that most people HAD left from many places, so that battle zones tend to be largely vacant of civilians.
The Rules Don't Apply?
This issue had come up before the Amnesty report. Washington Post reporter Sudarsan Raghavan wrote, back on March 28, "Russia has killed civilians in Ukraine. Kyiv’s defense tactics add to the danger." This article cited several cases of illegal basing and attacks that endangered civilians, and noted thagt, at the time, "Virtually every neighborhood in most cities has become militarized, some more than others, making them potential targets for Russian forces trying to take out Ukrainian defenses."
Citing Richard Weir, a researcher in Human Rights Watch’s crisis and conflict division, Raghavan wrote "the Ukrainian military has “a responsibility under international law” to remove their forces and equipment from civilian-populated areas, and if that is not possible, move civilians out of those areas, said Weir. “If they don’t do that, that is a violation of the laws of war,” he added. “Because what they are doing is they are putting civilians at risk. Because all that military equipment are legitimate targets.” William Schabas, an international law professor at Middlesex University in London, agreed:
“I am very reluctant to suggest that Ukraine is responsible for civilian casualties, because Ukraine is fighting to defend its country from an aggressor, ... But to the extent that Ukraine brings the battlefield to the civilian neighborhoods, it increases the danger to civilians.”
But opinions differed elsewhere, and some of the points raised at the time are pretty shocking. They didn't even deny these tactics, but rather denied that the rules against them applied to Ukraine. "Andriy Kovalyov, a military spokesman for Ukraine’s 112th Territorial Defense Brigade, whose forces and equipment are positioned in the capital, scoffed at that reasoning. “If we follow your logic, then we shouldn’t be defending our city,” he said." He "scoffs" at international law, believing there is no way to properly defend Ukraine WITHIN its framework. As such, he seems to think Ukraine is exempt, free to do it their way with no hindrance and no criticism. The idea appeared widespread at the time; Territorial Defense spokesman Pavlo Kazarin told Raghavan "We cannot defend the city without risks or injuring the civilians, unfortunately.” They can't or won't, and anyway they don't have to. The same article heard from a top Zelensky adviser:
In response to written questions from The Post, Alexei Arestovich, adviser to the head of the Office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said that the country’s military doctrine, approved by parliament, provides for the principle of “total defense.”
That means that volunteers in the Territorial Defense Forces or in other self-defense units have the legal authority to protect their homes, which are mostly in urban areas. ... We cannot prevent our citizens from defending their homes, freedoms, values and identities as they understand them.”
Arestovich says TDF need to defend their own homes, obviously (?), so they and other elements of the military might as well occupy and fight from whoever's home suits them, from whoever's school or hospital, etc. This is Libya-no-fly-zone logic.
Moreover, he argued that international humanitarian laws or the laws of war don’t apply in this conflict because “the main task of Putin’s military campaign is the destruction of the Ukrainian nation.” He said.
“Therefore, what is happening here is not a competition of European armies according to established rules, but a struggle of the people for survival in the face of an existential threat,” said Arestovich."
The rulers of every country that's invaded could say the same, as they often do, equating themselves (along with their regimes, their wars and other projects), with the whole nation. And yet the rules of war have always applied. Ukraine thinks it alone gets to be exempted, maybe just because they're the "European" army fighting for "values" up against the hated, "sub-human" "orcs" of Asian Russia.
As Amnesty's later report would say, "Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law.” This was initially disputed, but later, it seems this overt message of exceptionalism was de-emphasized. Ukrainian sources pretended that the laws still applied to them, but they just tried to pass this off as a hypothetical point. The Kyiv Independent, for example, would offer "No one is asking human rights organizations to cover up the possible wrongdoings of the Ukrainian military" and "It goes without saying that both sides in a war, even the one being brutally invaded by its neighbor, must respect the laws of war and do everything to protect civilians." As far as they say, Ukraine is doing a sterling job of following all the rules, or perhaps not totally:
"Unfortunately, that is much easier said than done. Wars are messy, they are hard, and neither side is likely to come out clean - even if one side is defending itself from Russia’s imperial ambitions to destroy the Ukrainian nation and people."
But the editors concede no specific dirt, and then fall back on the supposedly unprecedented existential threat they face, to help enforce these new Ukrainian rules. They slip into Orwellian mode in short order: "instead of calling on all sides to protect the lives of civilians, Amnesty International chose to run an irresponsible and dangerous report," which in its brevity manages to say "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." So ok, they did both-sides it there, but then "titling it “Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians,” and "overtly blaming Ukraine for the endangerment of innocent lives in the country" was inexcusable. They dished this blame overtly and truthfully, it seems, but just the overt part angers the editors.
"The report was precisely what Russia has been waiting for," the editorial continues, "A carte blanche to continue to target civilian infrastructure and claim there were soldiers or military equipment located at the site. All Russia has to do now after an attack on a hospital is point to Amnesty’s report as justification." Posner at the Atlantic Council used nearly the same words: "The Amnesty report has not only played into these dangerous narratives. Crucially, it has given the Kremlin carte blanche to continue its strategy of targeting Ukraine’s healthcare and civilian infrastructure."
Fail, coordinated or otherwise. The Russians could and did often claim that already, and it was likely true much of the time (see AP, March 15: "Russia has denied they are deliberately targeting civilians and insisted in some cases that enemy fighters were hiding within the buildings.") The Ukrainians themselves used to admit to it, claiming it was totally OK.
Furthermore, the report cannot have addressed the specifics of the future attacks it might be used to "justify." This pre-fails any effort at using the report to do more than establish a basic precedent, which was already fairly well established.
AND the report does NOT give "carte blanche" to attack in defense; individual and military survival instincts, common sense, and international law do that. What it does is expose war crimes of the Ukraine side, creating a TRUE equivalency when Kiev and its trolls insist on a false inequivalency or a double-standards - "one-siding" the whole subject, and trying to thug everyone into doing the same as a moral duty. When Ukrainians do anything in defense, they can do no wrong. When Russia does anything in defense, they can do no right. Period.
KI "In other words, the report poses a direct threat to the lives and safety of civilians in Ukraine."
The physical, battlefield practices that "turn civilian objects into military targets," as Ukrainian forces were found to do, that cause artillery shells to be legally launched at sometimes occupied civilian areas is not the danger to the folks living there - to the Ukrainian government and - independently of course - the staff of the Kyiv Independent, this practice in fact saves lives. Being used as human shields defends the citizens. Talking about the often deadly effects of that, in an effort to keep civilians out of the fighting, like international law requires and for good reason, is what endangers lives. This makes no sense, but then again ... RUSSIA.
Occupied Hospitals, Stara Krasnyanka Nursing Home
Schools and residential buildings come up, but just narrowing it here to consider the aspect of "medical objects" - hospitals, and other medical facilities. Amnesty report:
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.
ICRC handbook on the rules of war (PDF):
5.4.2.1 Protection of medical objects
It is prohibited to attack medical objects of any kind, including both civilian and military medical objects, except in limited circumstances, as set out in 5.4.2.2.
5.4.2.2 Cessation of protection: medical objects
The protection to which medical objects are entitled is mandatory and does not cease unless they are being used outside their humanitarian function to commit acts harmful to the enemy. In such cases, their protection may cease only after a warning has been given and has remained unheeded. Whenever appropriate, a reasonable time limit must be given
In an international armed conflict, the following in relation to medical units and hospitals will not be deemed to be acts harmful to the enemy justifying the loss of protection:
* that the personnel of the unit are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or that of the wounded and sick in their charge;
* that the unit is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort (in the absence of armed orderlies);
* that small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service are found in the unit; and
* that members of the armed forces, other combatants or civilians are in the unit for medical reasons
Being actively attacked from there is not on that list; legal protection is lost in that case, and that stands as reason to open fire, with the given conditions still applying. And the report goes to some pains to point out the Russian side doesn't always adhere to these conditions (notably, even in otherwise legitimate strikes, they often used "indiscriminate" weapons, which is its own war crime). Again, the report blamed both sides.
The Amnesty report could have made an even stronger case by including previously reported incidents. The U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) already issued a report in late June that looked into the effects of this policy in one especially tragic case at a nursing home in Lugansk Oblast (region). I'm not sure if nursing homes count as "medical objects," but either way, this is quite a story.
34. ... The use of human shields is specifically prohibited by article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and article 51(7) of additional protocol I.
Nonetheless...
35. OHCHR does not have reliable numbers on these cases, but the case of a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka (Luhansk region) has been emblematic in this regard. At the beginning of March 2022, when active hostilities drew nearer to the care house, its management repeatedly requested local authorities to evacuate the residents. This was reportedly impossible as Ukrainian armed forces had allegedly mined the surrounding area and blocked roads. On 7 March, soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces entered the care house, where older persons and residents with disabilities and staff were located, as it had strategic value due to its proximity to an important road. On 9 March, soldiers from Russian affiliated armed groups, who were approaching from the opposite direction, engaged in an exchange of fire with soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces, although it remains unclear which side opened fire first. During this first exchange of fire, no staff or patients were injured.
36. On 11 March, 71 patients with disabilities and 15 staff, along with soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces, remained in the care house with no access to water or electricity. That morning, soldiers from Russian affiliated armed groups attacked the care house with heavy weapons, with patients and staff still inside. A fire started and spread across the care house while fighting was ongoing. Some staff and patients fled the care house and ran into the forest, until they were met five kilometers away by Russian affiliated armed groups, who provided them with assistance. According to various accounts, at least 22 patients survived the attack, but the exact number of persons killed remains unknown.
71-22 = 49 fatalities suggested.
It should be noted the same report also relates a somewhat opposite case in Chernihiv region where "360 residents, including 74 children and 5 persons with disabilities, were forced by Russian armed forces to stay for 28 days in the basement of a school they had been using as their base." Other circumstances might have played a part, but no excuses were included in the report, which says ten older people died just under the poor conditions, which also might have external causes (Ukrainian siege). In this case, none was mentioned as killed or injured by any Ukrainian shelling.
The story was amplified by other Russian propaganda outlets like by World Socialist Website and by Associated Press reporters RICHARD LARDNER and BEATRICE DUPUY The nursing home can be geolocated, from Maxar photos with an AP report, to 49.0374762,38.3374468 - a bit off the highway "Avtoshlyakh R 66" aka "T-1303" near Stara Krasnyanka, between Kreminna and Rubizhne, and almost on the outskirts of Rubizhne, really.
.png)
The AP article relates the shocking findings in the UN report and contrasted it with how "The first reports in the media about the Stara Krasnyanka nursing home largely reflected statements issued by Ukrainian officials more than a week after the fighting ended." Two responses are cited: "Serhiy Haidai, the governor of Luhansk, declared in a March 20 post to his Telegram account:
56 dead in Kreminna. Shot at close range from a tank On March 11, the Russian occupiers fired a tank at a home for the elderly in Kreminna. Cynically and deliberately. They just drove the tank, put it in front of the house and started shooting. Those who lived out their age in the house - 56 people - died on the spot. Those who survived, namely 15 people, were kidnapped by the occupiers and taken to the occupied territory in Svatove to the regional geriatric boarding school. It is still impossible to get to the scene of the tragedy.
(Note: the death toll would later fall by the same 7 the survivors were raised by.)
"The office of Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Iryna Venediktova, said in a statement issued the same day that 56 elderly people died due to the “treacherous actions” of the Russian forces and their allies." "Neither statement mentioned whether Ukrainian soldiers had entered the home before the fighting began."
The Luhansk regional administration, which Haidai leads, did not respond to requests for comment. The Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office told the AP on Friday that its Luhansk division continues to investigate Russia’s “indiscriminate shelling and forced transfer of persons” from the nursing home. About 50 patients were killed in the attack, the office said, fewer than it stated in March. The prosecutor general’s office did not directly respond to the U.N. report, but said it also is looking into whether Ukrainian troops had been in the home.
Perhaps Ukraine, as the invaded victim, has every right to occupy a nursing home still full of mainly ethnic Russian people, mine the surroundings and then refuse to let them leave for that reason, then endanger them by attacking Russian forces from that nursing home, inviting legitimate return fire which, along with an ensuing building fire, killed some 49 residents. Perhaps this is the only way to defend the people, in a way you just can't do from a remote, open field.
Still, they didn't take that route. With the survivors considered kidnapped, obviously Ukrainian authorities doubt their account of the events. Anything inconvenient - like Ukrainian troops launching attacks form the nursing home - will be called Russian lies passed on under threat. They might come back with a firm denial that their forces militarized the home, as they had so many other places. But more likely they'll just keep "looking into it" forever, and somehow I predict the OHCHR will never finish its probe either, once these findings were seen. And that's how you can "one-side" the war crimes issue even in such a horrendous case as this. Folks are saying it's our moral duty to keep doing that, just more exclusively.
In Mariupol and Azovstal
It turns out part of it was used as a military post, and the Russians implicitly deny attacking it anyway (no air strikes in the city that day), while the physical evidence is inconclusive but consistent with their denial and with this being a well-chosen false-flag attack using dispensable locals as raw material. Most of them were ethnic Russians who saw the Ukrainian forces as occupiers, at the point where that occupation was about finished and increasingly desperate.
Maruipol maternity hospitals in review: Russian claims in response to the accusations referred to M.H. no. 1 occupied by Azov, with staff evacuated, hosting attacks on RU troops by 3/5, counter-attacks thereafter - all fairly well-documented with witness accounts and more. But it was M.H. no. 3 that was famously hit. They didn't say about that one, but survivor Marianna Vishegirskaya says the maternity ward at hospital no. 3 was first occupied on March 6, probably by the Azov Battalion, though she doesn't know who. As she relates it, patients and staff were moved just one building over to the west. A powerful bomb or missile (or I think two missiles) struck between buildings on the 9th. Patients, staff, and others sheltering in the new area were wounded and at least 4 killed (at least one pregnant woman and the child she was carrying, a man, a girl, and at least one other person). But there were no injuries that we know of in the less-damaged western eastern building Ukrainian forces were based in. They denied being based there, to help clarify a propaganda message they may have written themselves, something like "Russians are killing Ukrainian babies in the womb just to genocidally destroy Ukraine's future."
For the details and sources on all that, see here, mainly but note my missile direction reading was flawed - something like a Tochka-U missile tends to come in nearly vertical regardless of direction or range, so the faint direction from the Azovstal plant is not as definitive as I thought. (for a mortar shell or a basic rocket, my analysis would be sound, but for a missile, it just might be.)
Later, Ukrainian forces in Mariupol would be pushed back to the Azovstal steel plant - where those missiles MIGHT have come from - and where quite a few civilians were also sheltering.
.png)
"...said a Reuters report on May 1 did not include a comment made by an evacuee from the steelworks. In her account to the media in Russian-controlled Ukraine, Natalia Usmanova said Ukrainian troops had kept her and other civilians in the steelworks against their will." ""Reuters, in fact, heavily censored what she said in reality," Polyanskiy told an informal session of the U.N. Security Council."
Reuters acknowledged this, explaining "We are still seeking to verify key aspects of Natalia Usmanova's account. We are committed to reporting on the conflict on Ukraine in an impartial and independent way, as we do around the world." Of course no such verification is required for accounts criticizing Russian forces, just "impartially" for those claims inconvenient to Ukraine.
Mariupol in general ... I've gathered some clues here Monitor on Massacre Marketing: Who is Really Flattening Mariupol? (libyancivilwar.blogspot.com) At the time, as fighting intensified massively, I said "most residents remain trapped in the city, and both sides blame each other." Various re-published reports and claims:
March 5: "Residents of #Mariupol gathered to evacuate, but the #Militants of "#Azov" do not let them leave." 300 were allowed to leave on busses, then 3/6: "A second attempt to evacuate civilians from the besieged port city of Mariupol, in southern Ukraine, has collapsed as both Ukrainians and Russians blame each other for violating a previously agreed ceasefire. ... A source from the Azov Battalion" told Al-Jazeera that Russian forces had started shelling as efforts to get people on buses in Mariupol began."
3/6 "Azov deputy commander in a video statement today, saying there is no evacuation and telling Mariupol residents to stay in place." 3/6 "Yesterday, Russia had initiated the organization of a humanitarian corridor for the residents of Mariupol. Upon arrival at the place, the Azov Regiment (on video) said that there would be no evacuation. The woman's reaction is expected." Ukrainian soldiers explaining people can't leave, and should consider themselves lucky not to get shot (by "the Russians" of course). https://twitter.com/ClintEhrlich/status/1500351736677998595
Drama theater attack: there are reports the Azov Battalion made a base here, but having looked into it, there's little to no evidence for that, let alone for their launching attacks from here. No valid reason for the Russians to strike a shelter said to hold 1,000+ people, with the biggest "CHILDREN" signs plainly visible from space. Also having looked at the evidence, there's no proof the Russians lied when they denied any airstrikes on Mariupol at the time. And I can say the evidence is at least as consistent with the alternative story, reported IN ADVANCE, that Azov - based in the building or not - had somehow rigged a huge bomb in the rafters to fake an airstrike that would kill 1,000+, hopefully triggering some NATO intervention. Maybe the plan being leaked is why they demoted it to something less dramatic - it could be they detonated the bomb anyway to destroy that evidence, after letting most of the inhabitants leave. They would claim ignorance over who was there and report a Russian bomb and 1,000+ likely dead, show the "Children" signs like they did, and then later find it was just a few hundred people there at the end, most of whom escaped, and only "dozens" were verified as actually killed. (12 verified by AI w/"many more" suspected - 14 bodies found by DPR) I really think that's a plan A and plan B in operation there.
Bucha
I know the details especially in Bucha, where the concept applies mainly in reverse, as the city was primarily defended from a distance with artillery (DBGZ pt. 1), with Russian forces occupying buildings for shelter, and perhaps launching attacks from them, although no cases are known). This invited artillery strikes that are evident and probably killed a number of citizens, although Ukraine denies this. At least one school is included, a few private homes, and a few large apartment buildings, besides industrial buildings more set aside.
Some cases where Russian presence caused harm: Feb. 25 Ukrainian shelling of military trucks that damaged at least 5 cars in traffic, likely killing some people (DBGZ pt. 2) - and the bombing of a Russian column that was passing Vokzalna street on the 27th, destroying some 12 homes and badly damaging others, officially causing no civilian injuries or deaths (DBGZ pt. 3). At least one man was killed in the destruction of 2 AFVs at the electric station nearby on an unclear day in March. (DBGZ pt. 10)
But in the early days, there were some cases of the opposite, with small-scale open fighting around the Novus store on north Vokzalna. This saw at least 2 Russian AFVs destroyed, one hit by RPG on video boastfully shared online, and at least one Ukrainian fighter killed. But when the Novus and several area buildings were damaged by apparent tank shelling, it was posed as unprovoked Russian aggression (see my analysis - DBGZ pt. 4 ).
A timeline of resistance I found later hears from Vladimir Shcherbinin, head of "the public organization Buchanska Varta or "Bucha Guard." who apparently coordinated with Territorial Defense Forces in its resistance operations, mainly described as early; he himself fought the Russians near the Novus in north-central Bucha on Feb. 27, getting badly injured and hospitalized for it. After this, he says "One sniper went and shot about ten of Russians. Then two more guys. One of our fighters went and burned the armored personnel carrier at night. He died, itʼs a pity, he was a good guy."
A Milwaukee Independent article I found. Bucha resident Ivan who claims Russians used his home as a base, and they left 6 tortured bodies in his basement. He didn't witness any of that, having fled early, on February 26, but he had heard details of what happened after. One point Ivan relates regarded "an apartment building, with its top floor blackened," as the report notes it. This refers to Vodoprovidna 62, shown below on the left as it appeared in famous drone footage of March 3 or 5 (it's disputed on the Ukrainian side).
Ivan explained: “A military man from the Territorial Defense lived there. He was hiding in his top-floor apartment, waiting for the right opportunity,” said Ivan. “One day he shot the occupiers from his apartment. But after he was spotted, the Russians turned their tanks towards the apartment and destroyed it along with the building.”" That happened prior to this drone footage, most likely on the 27th, as a tank column was passing on Vokzalna, before it was destroyed (see the start of burned wreckage and collapsed homes on the right). In fact, here it is burning at the same time Mykola Vorobiov 🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺 on Twitter:
He had to defend his home, right? That's a bedrock thing for TDF. Otherwise the Russians would have wrecked it. And how else can he protect his home than by firing at the Russians ... maybe from someone else's home?
Borodyanka
I did some good work on this too. The "Unprovoked tank fire" apparently responding to the destruction of the supply column that tank was escorting, by military weapons probably fired in or near the empty apartment this video (of about Feb. 27) is taken from, ...
... is NOT what collapsed the two nearby apartment towers (intact in pink above, with a 3rd tower between them) - that happened a couple of days later, trapping hundreds of civilians in the basement shelters where they died. That was some other poorly understood event in this conflict. They're saying it was Russian bombs, with no reason aside from the subhuman cruelty of the orcs. There might be more to learn on this, but I've been behind on it for a while.
Conclusion
The mob's message is clear: All those speaking the truth about UA using human shields is endangering Ukrainian lives are helpful to Russia and a threat to Ukrainian lives. As such, they must retract & apologize, heads should probably roll, and it can never happen again.
The list now should include ... fewer than it should, but just from the above: Amnesty International, the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Middlesex University in London, the Washington Post, perhaps the Associated Press, Politico, West Point, Reuters, Der Spiegel (if their retraction of that video was deemed too little too late), and all the other conspirators in Russia's disinformation campaign against the exceptional purity and goodness that is the new Ukraine. It seems to be a quickly growing global conspiracy. Some "trolls" will need to up their game against the "orcs" and their hordes, if they want to get these new rules of war universally accepted.
