Before I can justify my hypothesis that the alleged "special military operation" carried out by the Russian Federation exhausts in fact the character of the alleged humanitarian intervention, I will usage the exemplifications of this phenomenon over the 20th century and will besides effort to make a conceptual grid that will aid him realize the essence of the problem. I saw that terms specified as genocide, cultural cleansing, crimes against humanity or war crimes are utilized in the public, mainstream media and in public debate almost interchangeably. This causes confusion in the minds of the recipients, leads to dangerous simplifications and besides contributes to the application of double standards. We will besides look at what the alleged humanitarian intervention is and make a brief comparison with the military intervention of the NATO alliance in Yugoslavia, which, without any reservations, has been classified as such.
In order for humanitarian intervention to take place (so far as we ignore the aspect which is raised by researchers representing a realistic theoretical approach in the survey of global relations), there must be a situation in a country where specified intervention is carried out which grossly violates alleged fundamental human rights, humanitarian rights, e.g. cultural cleansing, genocide, acute cultural or ethnopolitical conflict, etc. It should be stressed that humanitarian intervention is in fact nothing more than a violation of global law on the sovereignty of states and the non-intervention of external political actors in its affairs. Therefore, a number of objections and concerns from scholars, lawyers, politicians, diplomats and opinion-makers regarding the anticipation of specified intervention being legal in general. It besides raises ethical, moral doubts, becomes a dilemma which all time 1 country enters another.
Of course, according to the principles of humanitarian intervention, all operations can be considered, i.e. besides those whose scale is much smaller, e.g. actions carried out by peculiar services of a abroad country to defend its safety outside its borders (video anti-terrorist actions of peculiar services of Israel). Here, too, there are a number of doubts as to the compatibility with global law of this kind of activity, although it should be admitted that this is besides more understood by the public due to the lower degree of spectacularness and the deficiency of real and long-term harm to wellness or failure of life by a large number of people.
Reality and past have shown that specified confusion in the affairs of another country may or may not be a part of imperial politics of states with the top power of global influence, i.e. powers. It is facilitated by the fact that the UN safety Council does not request the UN safety Council's consent to carry out humanitarian intervention, so this can be done at any time and at the discretion of the intervening State. This was besides the case in the case of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia. In thought, at least the declarative decision to take this action was to prevent cultural cleansing and genocide on the Muslim population (especially Albanians) by the Serbs. any researchers, however, found that all acts of gross force between these parties had already taken place after the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, so it can be assumed that actually specified terrible events were the consequence of humanitarian intervention. Furthermore, it should be noted that the kind of weapon utilized against the people of the decaying Yugoslavia was illegal under the law of war.
Before I go to the meritum, I will explain what cultural cleansing, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are. Well, cultural cleansing is forced displacement, resettlement, and displacement of people against their will. This may apply to any cultural group but besides to language, social, etc. in order to harmonise (e.g. ethnic) within a given area covered by specified action. cultural cleansing, even if it does not entail demolition of the population in a biological sense, is eligible under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, the global Criminal Court and the UN Charter as a crime against humanity.
Crimes against humanity do not truly have a circumstantial definition, are considered intuitively and include all criminal actions against a peculiar social, cultural or spiritual group that violate fundamental human rights. Unlike genocide or war crimes, “crimes against humanity” before the global Criminal Court was established in 1998 were not a very well-defined concept, which introduced a greater anticipation of utilizing this word for propaganda purposes. This is besides the case erstwhile we read akin subjects in the mass media.
The war crime has been defined since the actual end of planet War I, although the law of war tried to clarify it already in the late 19th century. In simplification, acts that violate the customs and provisions of the Statute of the global Criminal Court and, in this case, mention to the findings of the global Military Court in Nuremberg are considered a war crime. usually a war crime is the usage of weapons prohibited by law of war, e.g. biological weapons, chemical weapons, attacking civilian targets, causing excessive and unnecessary suffering to participants (warmen) of conflict, attacking civilians, torture, killing military troops that have declared surrender, etc.
Turning to the meritum, the Kiev government has for almost a decade violated all conventions concerning human rights towards the citizens of east Ukraine with a linguistic key. I emphasize that according to the linguistic criterion, due to the fact that the government in Kiev adopted a nineteenth-century criterion, utilized as a correct 1 by Vladimir Lenin, the presumption that the language utilized by a given group defines its national or cultural identity. specified an presumption is not only outdated, but even contradicts the reason and intelligence of all man who realizes that the national identity does not have a primal nature and is simply a construct. Polish people surviving in Kazakhstan, who mostly do not usage Polish language on a regular basis, but identify with Polish culture, are frequently Catholic, celebrate all or part of national holidays, feel like Poles, and are not allowed to deny it. Similarly, in the case of Ukrainians who mostly did not talk Ukrainian, but had / have Ukrainian identity and identify with Ukrainian culture, they simply feel Ukrainian despite utilizing Russian. In Ukraine there is simply a Ukrainianization in the 19th century kind of the first wave of rusification, erstwhile it was assumed that if he forced himself on any individual to talk Russian, he would abruptly feel Russian. This is, of course, a incorrect assumption, although the failure of the ability to usage the national language is indeed the first step to nationalization.
Government in Kiev by failing to pay social benefits, military attack of its own Russian-speaking citizens from the east Ukraine created conditions that threatened the biological existence of this population. In addition, after the intervention of the Russian Federation's army, cities helped fleeing citizens from areas under military action, he sent them back “to the front”. Thus, it can be assumed that the Kiev government aims to carry out cultural cleansing in this area in order to harmonise Ukraine in linguistic and cultural terms. This is nothing but a crime against humanity.
During the war, the Ukrainian army placed troops in areas inhabited by civilians and in civilian buildings to provoke the Russian attack on these objects. Additionally, it was observed that, for example, armoured vehicles appeared between civilian buildings, while snipers were visible on the roofs of the blocks. The Ukrainian Army carried out (and continues to do so) torture on Russian prisoners of war (the most characteristic is knee-shooting), making a real vendetta on civilians surviving in areas from which the Russian military withdrew. Documented repression of both local authorities and Ukrainian citizens was initiated on the pretext of recognising each a priori as a Russian collaborator.
In addition to embezzlement of funds to aid Ukrainians affected by the war, there was a deficiency of aid in the form of basic primary products to Russian-speaking people, which is besides documented in the form of video recording. Discrimination of the Russian-speaking population lasted for a full of 8 years, followed by (consistent with the Russian war doctrine in force since 2014) Russian troops' intervention in Ukraine to defend that population. Concern about the real threat of cultural cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide (death as a consequence of Ukrainian troops' actions against their own people in the east Ukraine has already claimed respective tens of thousands of people) was and is real.
To this day, there has been no independent investigation into the crime in Odessa or the usage of military forces against the civilian population of east Ukraine. Discrimination, repression, refusal to pay benefits, making life intolerable even to a biological degree are adequate grounds for intervention by an external entity in Ukraine's interior affairs as described above. It is so possible to make a kind of thought experimentation that, in essence, the entry of Russian troops into east Ukraine qualifies as a alleged humanitarian intervention. It even turns out that it is far more humane than the 1 in the erstwhile Yugoslavia, where weapons against the law of war were used. Furthermore, the argument that the Russians inherently hatred Ukrainians and search to destruct Ukrainian people is incorrect both in applicable terms (relatively good treatment of civilians by the Russian army in order to convince the local population to the Kremlin's right), as well as theoretically – the Russians consider the Ukrainians to be part of their nation, i.e. the Malurus and deliberate biological demolition of the Ukrainians would be killing just their own nation. This is contrary to logic and the Russian perspective. I compose this in order to analyse alternatively than deny the Ukrainians the perception of their national identity as distinct from the Russian identity (the Russian people besides including the Belarusians). I am consistent in this regard, due to the fact that cultural identity is indeed a construct and not a feature coupled with being born in 1 alternatively than another cultural group in a biological sense.
The political leadership in Kiev and its regulations and the kind of government did not exhaust democratic standards before the Russian invasion. Additionally, the government (most most likely due to the influence of its external powers) was ordered to violate all possible provisions of global law and human rights. Russian intervention can be qualified as humanitarian intervention, i.e. to defend the scandalous Russian-speaking part of Ukrainian citizens. Especially that any irregularities and crimes committed by Kiev have even seen Amnesty International, despite the strong censorship of information from Russian sources and the obstruction of journalists reporting the situation at the site of the events described. It is so crucial to seriously consider whether the Ukrainian Government should not be put before any global tribunal in order to make amends to victims of specified vile treatment of civilians.
Sylvia Gorlicka
