Got questions about why I think it is genocide. Until this morning I resisted applying the term. War crimes? Sure. Heinous rhetoric? You bet. What changed is the combination of more and more evidence, from different places, and even more importantly, explicit official rhetoric /1
The official legal definition of genocide is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". When I teach genocide I start by saying that this definition has huge problems because it doesn't give us /2
clear thresholds (what "in part" does even mean?) and because it is almost impossible to prove intent. People who carry out genocide are usually not idiots, if there are orders at all they would be given orally.
But, several things are important to realize. First, something /3
But, several things are important to realize. First, something /3
that doesn't start as genocide might evolve into one when conditions change. Russian invasion, in my view, did not start with clear genocidal intent, but evolved into one. Regime change and colonial subjugation are by themselves not enough to constitute genocide. Second, more /4
evidence that Bucha is not an exception. Each massacre might be local initiative, together they are a campaign. And most importantly, the RIA Novosti (a state outlet) piece is one of the most explicit statements of intent to destroy a national group as such that I've ever seen /5
I know Russian. I have read a lot of Russian nationalist rhetoric in my life. This is not some wild intellectual fantasy, it is a clear, actionable statement of intent by a state agency. The UN definition is problematic, but in this case it fits like a glove
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
