Unless you also consider the Iraq war/ Afghanistan war to be genocides, then yes, that basically is the definition you use; you certainly don’t use the actual definition.
A million civilians AND the birth defect rate went through the roof after the war AND they destroyed every single piece of infrastructure they could find including water and power AND they used chemical weapons like white phosphorous which is the modern equivalent of napalm
Lmao well you sure don’t use the actual definition of genocide
[T]he ICJ ruled on Friday that it will not address whether Russia violated the 1948 Genocide Convention by using what Ukraine says were trumped-up genocide charges as a pretext for the war, even if the invasion may have violated international law broadly.
Instead, the case will proceed to assess whether Ukraine committed genocide in the eastern parts of the country, as Russia claims – a matter where judges ruled that they have jurisdiction.
Holy shit… you are completly spinning it around. Insane…
For context: the ICJ said they aren’t allowed to rule about Russia commiting a genocide. But Ukraine has asked the court to check if Ukraine did commit a genocide in eastern Ukraine, like Russia claimed. Its Ukraine asking for this investigation.
'“In the present case, even if the Russian Federation had, in bad faith, alleged that Ukraine committed genocide and taken certain measures against it under such a pretext, which the respondent [Ukraine] contends, this would not in itself constitute a violation of obligations” under the genocide convention, the ICJ said in the ruling read out by its president, Joan Donoghue on Friday.
The ICJ, known as the World Court, said it did not have jurisdiction to rule on whether Russia’s invasion violated the Genocide Convention, or on whether Moscow’s recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk, two breakaway republics in eastern Ukraine, amounted to a breach of the convention.
But the judges said they would allow Ukraine’s request for the court to rule that there was no “credible evidence that Ukraine is committing genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention” in eastern Ukraine.’
Removed by mod
Unless you also consider the Iraq war/ Afghanistan war to be genocides, then yes, that basically is the definition you use; you certainly don’t use the actual definition.
I mean… Lets be real here. They started the “war” on a false pretense and then killed a fuck ton of civilians.
A million civilians AND the birth defect rate went through the roof after the war AND they destroyed every single piece of infrastructure they could find including water and power AND they used chemical weapons like white phosphorous which is the modern equivalent of napalm
Removed by mod
Lmao well you sure don’t use the actual definition of genocide
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/2/icj-rules-that-it-will-hear-part-of-ukraine-russia-genocide-case
Holy shit… you are completly spinning it around. Insane…
For context: the ICJ said they aren’t allowed to rule about Russia commiting a genocide. But Ukraine has asked the court to check if Ukraine did commit a genocide in eastern Ukraine, like Russia claimed. Its Ukraine asking for this investigation.
'“In the present case, even if the Russian Federation had, in bad faith, alleged that Ukraine committed genocide and taken certain measures against it under such a pretext, which the respondent [Ukraine] contends, this would not in itself constitute a violation of obligations” under the genocide convention, the ICJ said in the ruling read out by its president, Joan Donoghue on Friday.
The ICJ, known as the World Court, said it did not have jurisdiction to rule on whether Russia’s invasion violated the Genocide Convention, or on whether Moscow’s recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk, two breakaway republics in eastern Ukraine, amounted to a breach of the convention.
But the judges said they would allow Ukraine’s request for the court to rule that there was no “credible evidence that Ukraine is committing genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention” in eastern Ukraine.’