I am sick and tired of the word ‘genocide’ being bandied about.
Russia has today stepped up its attacks on Ukraine’s major cities as officials in Mariupol said a ‘full-scale genocide’ was underway as Putin’s men unleashed a 15-hour artillery barrage while Kharkiv also came under heavy bombardment in a dark sign of what could be to come in the capital Kyiv.
It is war and I deplore it, but it is not genocide. This word is regularly being grotesquely misused. A genocide is a systematic attempt to wipe an ethnic group off the face of the earth – as happened in the second world war with the Jews, or in Rwanda in the 1990s. Given that both sides in this conflict are Slavs, it can’t possibly be genocide anyway. But again, war is one thing, genocide is another. Casualties of war are not victims of genocide and this nonsense needs to be challenged.
It is not genocide.
Its one thing (among many) that makes me question all this propaganda that gets shovelled at us.
It’s a “full scale genocide”. Ok
“Hundreds dead…” That doesn’t sound full scale genocidey to me.
If the Russians wanted a full scale massacre, they would carpet bomb repeatedly from the air, maybe with a fuel-air bomb or twelve for good measure.
Launching a genocide that results in only a few hundred casualties when you have the resources and capabilities of the Russian military is unbelievable to the point of farce. And the Russian military is very capable.
The Russians are quite firm about the Ukraine action being a military ‘operation’ rather than a ‘war’ or an ‘invasion’.
It’s just playing with words, just as with the meaning of ‘genocide’. Of course I too could play with words – if the Russian military action is not a war then perhaps it is armed piracy or brigandage?
Putin missed a trick there.
He should have called it a “Liberation” or whatever the US/UK used before going into Iraq.
I quite agree. This is an unprovoked attack on an independent state. Many innocent people are being killed.
Sad to see the death and destruction going on and I have no dog in this fight and think they’re all lying, but the UK refusal to impose a no fly zone….. Ben Wallace, ‘We wouldn’t want the RAF to shoot down a Russian plane as that would trigger article 5 of the NATO convention.’
Article 5 is invoked when an aggressor ATTACKS A MEMBER OF NATO, not the other way round. What he means (but not what he says) is that if WE shoot down a Russian plane, THEY would be perfectly within their rights to shoot down an RAF plane. THAT would trigger article 5.
However, The UK / NATO imposing No Fly zones, shooting down aircraft and bombing countries was perfectly acceptable in:
Kuwait = 1990
Bosnia-Herzegovina = 1995
Kosovo = 1999
Afghanistan = 2001
Iraq = 2003
Libya = 2011
What is the difference? Nothing to do with the fact that we had overwhelming force over these little countries who could not fight back?
And people wonder why Iran should ever want the bomb…..
You really have been mislead. At the recent Munich security conference, Zelenskyy was threatening to rearm with Nuclear weapons. This was the last straw as far as the Kremlin was concerened. As to your claim that many innocent people are being killed, where are your figures and just as importantly, who by? The Russian military has been ordered NOT to attack civilain infrastructure. The mayor of Kiev has however, goven weapons to anybody and there are now gahgs roming the streets shooting people who wish to escape by the routes left open by the Russians. When all the dust finally settles and the truth comes out, it will be seen who were the real aggressors and it wasn’t Russia.
I am no more misled than you are. Frankly, that claim is irritating as it dismisses any points I might make as if I am somehow so bedazzled by the media that I cannot think critically. It’s insulting so please stop doing it.
I have made no claims here one way or the other – merely pointed out that casualties of war are not genocide – a word both sides are bandying about with no regard for its actual meaning.
As for who the aggressor is, when Russia sent tanks across the border, they became the aggressor, regardless of what disputes might have existed prior to that. Invading another country is a moral wrong.