Thread by @olesya_on

Apart from being revolting and inhumane this Amnesty International analysis in certain instances is legally incorrect. A legal thread:

Let’s start with the fact that international law is not just words, it is the spirit, which determines how the law should be interpreted. So, what is the spirit of IV Geneva Convention and Protocol I, which are the main treaties regulating protection of civilians in war zones?

Article 4 of the Convention states that “Persons protected by the Convention are those who […] find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict of which they are not nationals.” This means that Convention is aimed to protect...

...the most obvious victims (being the nationals of the attacked party) from the attacking Party. In our case, Convention is clearly aimed at protecting Ukrainians (and people of other nations) from Russia.

Geneva Convention is not about equalizing the actions of the aggressor and the victim. It is about the protection of the victim FROM the aggression.
All actions of Ukraine army should be viewed in the context of the protection it ensures for 40 million Ukrainians citizens.

AI states that “Int humanitarian law requires all parties to a conflict to avoid locating, to the maximum extent feasible, military objectives within or near densely populated areas.” That’s true. Did Ukrainian army violate this rule? No.

There are no densely populated areas on the frontlines anymore. 80-90% of people left in the first months of Russian aggression. Moreover, this obligation applies "to the maximum extent feasible", meaning "within the actual ability of the party to comply with it".

Ukraine has no actual ability to fight outside of populated areas. Firstly, because there’s no military infrastructure available to accommodate the fighting of such scale. Ukr is defending against a much larger enemy and “city fortresses” is the only way to stop it.

Expecting a defensive force to came out of its fortifications is contrary to basic logic and there’s no requirement in Geneva convention to do it. Secondly, because Russians expressly attack populated areas and kill/rape civilians, so Ukr army should be there to protect them.

AI continues: “Other obligations to protect civilians from the effects of attacks include removing civilians from the vicinity of military objectives and giving effective warning of attacks that may affect the civilian population.” –

Removing civilians is happening for the last 5 months. Ukrainian authorities have consistently asked people to evacuate. Evacuation corridors were opened. Ukrainian soldiers risked their lives to evacuate civilians while Russia was shelling the corridors.

Evacuation trains leave Eastern regions of Ukr every day. Everybody who wanted is already out. “Giving effective warning” which AI refers to is an obligation of the Russian army which does the offensive. It is a blatant lie say Ukrainian should do this while they are in defence.

The last by not least – AI relies on testimonies of witnesses which for years were subject to Russian propaganda and may create whatever stories to fit their narrative of Ukr army being the “bad guys”.

I will not deny that there may be individual cases where a particular Ukr soldier did not do enough to protect civilians, but those are very rare when compared to HOW MUCH EFFORT Ukrainian army has made to protect civilians.

Conclusion: Ukr army is not in breach of international law and @amnesty are either incapable of intelligent analysis or working for Ru or both.

Another proof of how Amnesty International is manipulating and distorting. My fellow Ukrainian did a sentence by sentence analysis of their "statement"👇