Academic who studies genocide says Russian actions now fit the UN definition

[muriel_volestrangler]

and that is very rare.

Link to tweet

"As a genocide scholar I am an empiricist, I usually dismiss rhetoric. I also take genocide claims with a truckload of salt because activists apply it almost everywhere now.

Not now. There are actions, there is intent. It's as genocide as it gets. Pure, simple and for all to see"

Link to tweet

Rest of thread:

Got questions about why I think it is genocide. Until this morning I resisted applying the term. War crimes? Sure. Heinous rhetoric? You bet. What changed is the combination of more and more evidence, from different places, and even more importantly, explicit official rhetoric /1
The official legal definition of genocide is “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. When I teach genocide I start by saying that this definition has huge problems because it doesn’t give us /2
clear thresholds (what “in part” does even mean?) and because it is almost impossible to prove intent. People who carry out genocide are usually not idiots, if there are orders at all they would be given orally. But, several things are important to realize. First, something /3
that doesn’t start as genocide might evolve into one when conditions change. Russian invasion, in my view, did not start with clear genocidal intent, but evolved into one. Regime change and colonial subjugation are by themselves not enough to constitute genocide. Second, more /4
evidence that Bucha is not an exception. Each massacre might be local initiative, together they are a campaign. And most importantly, the RIA Novosti (a state outlet) piece is one of the most explicit statements of intent to destroy a national group as such that I’ve ever seen /5
I know Russian. I have read a lot of Russian nationalist rhetoric in my life. This is not some wild intellectual fantasy, it is a clear, actionable statement of intent by a state agency. The UN definition is problematic, but in this case it fits like a glove

The translation of the referenced RIA Novosti article is here: https://medium.com/%40kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64

It is truly appalling. It reads like the most explicitly-stated public version of, ironically, Nazi war aims (ironic, because it uses 'Nazi' about a hundred times, to describe Ukraine - not just its government, but most of its people). It explicitly says Ukrainians need punishing, with violence and poverty for a generation, for daring to be friendly with "decadent" modern Europe, and that the Russians are the sole guardian of "Old European" values. It would abolish Ukraine as a country, "re-educate" the populace in the east, and decides that, since those in the west of Ukraine hate Russia (not, as far as it's concerned, because of the war crimes Russia is committing, but because it's Catholic), that will just have to be a powerless region "where the haters of Russia will go", under constant threat of more war if they do anything.

All via Balloon Juice: https://www.balloon-juice.com/2022/04/05/war-for-ukraine-update-41-the-focus-shifts-to-the-east/

[PatSeg]

1. K&R

[peggysue2]

2. I suggest all DU members read and contemplate this declaration

Truly horrifying, blatantly calling for and defending the elimination of Ukraine as a nation and people.

How far will Putin go?

According to this document, Bucha is only the beginning. This declaration outlines mass extermination, and then reeducation of whoever, whatever is left in the rubble.

If accurate? We're looking at the beginnings of WWIII.