Thread by @UmlandAndreas

THREAD:
The critique of @amnesty of the behavior of Ukraine's military is inapt for one or both of the following two reasons:
It can (a) be a critique of tactical decisions taken on the spot by Ukrainian army officers. However, @Amnesty is not a military agency or think tank. /1

The human rights NGO has neither the professional competence nor the public authority to assess the military necessity of, or putative alternatives to, an occasional stationing of Ukrainian troops in residential areas or near other civilian facilities. /2

Even more worrisome about the foray of the reputed NGO into military affairs is an absence of consideration of possible human rights repercussions of the publicly suggested more cautious tactical behavior of the Ukrainian armed forces. /3

Is the suggested larger distance of Ukrainian armed forces from Ukrainian civilians indeed always and clearly in the interests of these civilians? What can be various possible net results of such more cautious military behavior in terms of protecting human rights in Ukraine? /4

The remarks of @amnesty can (b) imply a more fundamental critique of the Ukrainian state's behavior that is about not only tactical but also ethical issues. It could mean that the Ukrainian army does not care about Ukrainian civilians, or even uses them as human shields. /5

@amnesty While this is a worrisome interpretation of the motivation behind @amnesty's critique, it would provide an explanation of why the NGO's criticism has been made public in the first place. Presumably, even non-military experts of @Amnesty understand the many vagaries of defense. /6

One simply wonders why an international human rights organization would publicly criticize a certain country's army's way of desperate resistance against a massive armed attack on this country - especially so as the attacker's human rights reputation is not entirely spotless. /7

Shouldn't one assume that a defending army will by itself try to minimize the effects of its armed resistance against aggression, on civilian citizens and infrastructure? Do Ukraine's generals and officers need a foreign NGO to alert them to possible risks of their decisions? /8

As @Amnesty has decided to go public with its fundamental critique of Ukraine's army, it appears that the Ukrainian military leadership cannot be trusted to actually defend the life and interests of Ukraine's citizens. Doesn't such an assumption about Ukraine sound familiar? /9

The claim that the Ukrainian state does not care about the fundamental needs of its citizens is well-known, in Russia and Ukraine. It is at the core of Moscow's apology for the entire war and has been a constant theme in the Kremlin's propaganda for more than eight years. /10

The @amnesty report has immediately become recognized, by both Russians and Ukrainians, as feeding into Moscow's official justification for its armed invasion of Ukraine since 2014. Didn't Russia always say that it has a "responsibility to protect" Russian speakers from Kyiv? /11

@amnesty The explicit contents of, and implied conclusions from, @amnesty's public critique of Ukraine's armed forces will not lead to better protection of human rights in Ukraine. They will instead support the Kremlin's narrative of the sources and nature of the entire conflict. /12

The military incompetence of @amnesty's official comment on Ukraine's conduct of its defensive war against Russia's annihilation war is excusable. However, the political insensitivity of such an inapt coming out of the reputed human rights organization is rather regrettable. /END

@threadreaderapp #unroll