Thread by @stand_for_all

I was planning on keeping out of the whole Amnesty international report debacle, mainly because there is enough infighting among the human rights sector as it is and that just allows those seeking to undermine those rights more opportunities. This tweet changes that. 1/

You would have to have particularly strong rose tinted spectacles to think that in any war either side is going to come out completely blameless and looking whiter than white, but there are degrees and there are nuances which need to be clearly made. 2/

Let's be brutally honest here, Russia is committing a genocide in Ukraine. "Genocide" is a word, like Nazi, which often gets thrown around so much it loses any meaning, so I say it with all due regard and caution. The Ukraine war is a genocide. 3/

In any war it is ideally the case that both sides should do their utmost to protect civilian life. What we are seeing in Ukraine though is the repeated shelling of civilian areas by Russian forces. 4/

That makes it pretty damn hard for Ukrainian forces not to be deployed to the areas which Russian forces are attacking, i.e civilian ones. Again, this isn't a war, it is an attempted genocide by Russia. 5/

Is Ukraine entirely above reproach, of course not. Conflicts are never black and white. Does Ukraine have the right to do everything it can from a foreign aggressor determined to wipe it off the face of the planet? Within the rules of international warfare, yes. 6/

Nothing stated in the report shows that Ukraine has engaged in war crimes, yet the framing of it without a more nuanced and closer look at international law presents it almost as if they are, particularly for bad faith actors looking to spin it. 7/

We are already seeing a growing movement, including some quite senior members in left wing politics, calling for countries to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine as a means to stop the war. The inevitable outcome of which is Ukraine loses. 8/

Should @amnesty provide a balanced view and call for civilians to be protected? I would argue yes. It's an important aspect of their work. Should they do it in such a provocative way which allows for arguments ultimately leading to Russia succeeding in a genocide? No. 9/

It is not "impartiality" to fail to cover all aspects of a situation and lead to the conclusion, deliberate or otherwise, that both sides are as bad as each other. The litany of Russian war crimes is extensive. 10/

If you are going to write a report like this you need to be very careful as to what you say and how you frame it. Failing to fully cover the nuances of international law of armed conflicts automatically undermines that. 11/

Amnesty had to know that this report would be weaponised by Russia. That should have been factored in and all steps taken to ensure that the framing and content could not be used for disinformation. No matter what else, they failed to do that spectacularly. 12/

And for a more detailed look at exactly how @amnesty got the law wrong in its report I would recommend this thread by @marcgarlasco 13/

Well this took off a little more than expected. Going to mute the thread now as my mentions are an absolute state and I can't keep track.