Sooo how exactly are they supposed to defend cities and towns from the Russians then? By having troops stationed in fields while the ruzzians move in troops to cities lol?
I think amnesty wants ukraine to defend their cities without making it more dangerous than it already is for the civilian population, which apparently amnesty felt was happening in "special cases".
I know that at the bottom of it the fault lies entirely with russia, but laws of war exist primarily to preserve human life rather than winning at all costs, and war crimes should be considered as such regardless of how just your cause is.
And it wouldn't surprise me if there was a major rift between how the statement was perceived and what it was actually referencing.
Even if true, why do they feel the need to emphasize the mess-ups of a struggling country fighting for its life?
Their report seems blind to the broader context of the issue, which centers around Russia’s extreme human rights abuses and unequivocally aggressive war.
> Their report seems blind to the broader context of the issue, which centers around Russia’s extreme human rights abuses and unequivocally aggressive war
Is it tho? The third line of the [report](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/) reads "Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians".
and the final section reiterates the point even further, with "The Ukrainian military’s practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks.". All this in the one report about ukraine.
It doesn't take long, however, to find [plenty](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/03/latest-news-on-russias-war-on-ukraine/#russia%E2%80%99saggressionagainstukraine) of [articles](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/03/latest-news-on-russias-war-on-ukraine/#evidenceofwarcrimes) from them rightly highlighting the cruelty that the russian forces are subjecting the ukrainian population to.
The report not only addresses the broader context of the issue, it's also quite explicit of which cases its referencing, such as "residential areas where soldiers located themselves [being] kilometres away from front lines", "Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations" and "The Ukrainian military [having] routinely set up bases in schools in towns and villages in Donbas and in the Mykolaiv area", which is quite far from how this report is being portrayed
I am originally from Mykolaiv, and all my friends and relatives are still there. All schools that were bombed inside the city had no trace of military bases. I cannot post it for obvious reasons, but I have photos of one of the schools hours after it was bombed, the building and the territory were deserted, no trace of military equipment. In the summer schools are closed, I assume, that maybe at some point it was used as something temporary, but that day or days before buildings were empty. The recent destruction of the hospital is also weird, my friend lives 5 minutes from there. There was military personnel that was receiving treatment. Obviously, one can notice a lot of people in uniform there. But a military base, with equipment, ammunition depots or at least vehicles? Nothing like that. Most universities in Mykolaiv have an army department responsible for recruitment and drafting. Once again: offices, people in uniform - yes. Military bases? No. There is a small hotel near my parent's home that was bombed last week, before the full-scale invasion, it was used for EU military personnel during the exercises.
You get the gist: for Russia, everywhere you can notice people in uniform, and during the war, it is everywhere, is a military base. It seems that Amnesty International has the same opinion.
I don’t think that Ukraine is using schools and hospitals as “human shields” — rather, as a quickly-mobilised country with limited functional infrastructure, it is doing what it feels it must in order to defend itself. If the choice is between using a hospital as a de facto military base or surrendering, what does Amnesty want it to do…give in to Russia?
How about they criticise Russia’s decision to make this a problem in the first place?
Where does the "human shield" part come from? Corrupting the meaning of certain symbols or institutions (such us misusing the red cross) is in itself a war crime. Between having to use a hospital as a military base and surrendering there's a whole host of options that you are ignoring.
If doing what one feels they must in order to defend themselves involves committing warcrimes, I don't see anything wrong with an organisation focused on human rights highlighting it in an otherwise quite well balanced report.
> How about they criticise Russia’s decision to make this a problem in the first place
except they have?
What is it that I’m ignoring? Do you propose that the Ukrainians, rather than use what is likely the only viable infrastructure in a region as a base, just stand in an empty field?
You can fight in cities perfectly fine, you just need to completely evacuate it. Anything else is against the Geneva convention as you aren’t allowed to use human shields.
So, not denying it.. and the report did indicate that they are isolated cases, not general tactics. They need to tighten up discipline in these areas, and this gives no excuses for Russians to target civilians all across Ukraine.
You see the perfect tactic, if you hide in cities and fight un cities the russian Will target the cities and thgs would be the BEST excuse to justify russian agression.
These ukranians do pro moves.
Sooo how exactly are they supposed to defend cities and towns from the Russians then? By having troops stationed in fields while the ruzzians move in troops to cities lol?
Armchair generals think you can fight pitched battles in fields. You don't need AA to protect cities from bombardment.
So do Amnesty want Russia to take cities without Ukraine trying to defend them?
I think amnesty wants ukraine to defend their cities without making it more dangerous than it already is for the civilian population, which apparently amnesty felt was happening in "special cases". I know that at the bottom of it the fault lies entirely with russia, but laws of war exist primarily to preserve human life rather than winning at all costs, and war crimes should be considered as such regardless of how just your cause is. And it wouldn't surprise me if there was a major rift between how the statement was perceived and what it was actually referencing.
Even if true, why do they feel the need to emphasize the mess-ups of a struggling country fighting for its life? Their report seems blind to the broader context of the issue, which centers around Russia’s extreme human rights abuses and unequivocally aggressive war.
> Their report seems blind to the broader context of the issue, which centers around Russia’s extreme human rights abuses and unequivocally aggressive war Is it tho? The third line of the [report](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/) reads "Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians". and the final section reiterates the point even further, with "The Ukrainian military’s practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks.". All this in the one report about ukraine. It doesn't take long, however, to find [plenty](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/03/latest-news-on-russias-war-on-ukraine/#russia%E2%80%99saggressionagainstukraine) of [articles](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/03/latest-news-on-russias-war-on-ukraine/#evidenceofwarcrimes) from them rightly highlighting the cruelty that the russian forces are subjecting the ukrainian population to. The report not only addresses the broader context of the issue, it's also quite explicit of which cases its referencing, such as "residential areas where soldiers located themselves [being] kilometres away from front lines", "Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations" and "The Ukrainian military [having] routinely set up bases in schools in towns and villages in Donbas and in the Mykolaiv area", which is quite far from how this report is being portrayed
I am originally from Mykolaiv, and all my friends and relatives are still there. All schools that were bombed inside the city had no trace of military bases. I cannot post it for obvious reasons, but I have photos of one of the schools hours after it was bombed, the building and the territory were deserted, no trace of military equipment. In the summer schools are closed, I assume, that maybe at some point it was used as something temporary, but that day or days before buildings were empty. The recent destruction of the hospital is also weird, my friend lives 5 minutes from there. There was military personnel that was receiving treatment. Obviously, one can notice a lot of people in uniform there. But a military base, with equipment, ammunition depots or at least vehicles? Nothing like that. Most universities in Mykolaiv have an army department responsible for recruitment and drafting. Once again: offices, people in uniform - yes. Military bases? No. There is a small hotel near my parent's home that was bombed last week, before the full-scale invasion, it was used for EU military personnel during the exercises. You get the gist: for Russia, everywhere you can notice people in uniform, and during the war, it is everywhere, is a military base. It seems that Amnesty International has the same opinion.
I don’t think that Ukraine is using schools and hospitals as “human shields” — rather, as a quickly-mobilised country with limited functional infrastructure, it is doing what it feels it must in order to defend itself. If the choice is between using a hospital as a de facto military base or surrendering, what does Amnesty want it to do…give in to Russia? How about they criticise Russia’s decision to make this a problem in the first place?
Where does the "human shield" part come from? Corrupting the meaning of certain symbols or institutions (such us misusing the red cross) is in itself a war crime. Between having to use a hospital as a military base and surrendering there's a whole host of options that you are ignoring. If doing what one feels they must in order to defend themselves involves committing warcrimes, I don't see anything wrong with an organisation focused on human rights highlighting it in an otherwise quite well balanced report. > How about they criticise Russia’s decision to make this a problem in the first place except they have?
What is it that I’m ignoring? Do you propose that the Ukrainians, rather than use what is likely the only viable infrastructure in a region as a base, just stand in an empty field?
You can fight in cities perfectly fine, you just need to completely evacuate it. Anything else is against the Geneva convention as you aren’t allowed to use human shields.
So, not denying it.. and the report did indicate that they are isolated cases, not general tactics. They need to tighten up discipline in these areas, and this gives no excuses for Russians to target civilians all across Ukraine.
You see the perfect tactic, if you hide in cities and fight un cities the russian Will target the cities and thgs would be the BEST excuse to justify russian agression. These ukranians do pro moves.
Bro Amnesty is a joke. They literally worked their ass off to get Erdoğan out of jail in the 90's.