https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/25/us/crew-of-cruiser-that-d...
I also would abstain from using "russians" (or USAers, or Israelis) when referring to actions of the respective govts. Keeps the discussion cleaner of generalizations wrt people that may totally not support their govt's actions.
The RF forces sieged Mariopol like a medieval city at the start of the war, creating large scale suffering. Afaik there was no water or power and people were melting ice for water.
The civilian casualties on the Ukraine war are at least 100,000+ maybe a multiple of that number.
Independent sources put it at 100,000+. I've randomly read 2x to 3x that but 100k+ is bad enough.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/ir...
However, these are adults only, because children deaths are not counted at that time. With school-age children, for which records are stored, number raises to 10.5 million. Number of under school age children died because of artificial hunger in 1932-1934 is still unknown.
I hope, this will help to calculate number of deaths in Iraq.
It won't and there is not reason to think it will. It was a completely different situation. So keep your hopes to yourself.
Russia is doing textbook genocide by "reeducating" ukrainians childrens: https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15395.doc.htm
> Russian Federation agents have taken at least 19,546 children to that country from Ukraine since 18 February 2022. Among other violations, Russian Federation citizenship is imposed on them, and they are forbidden to speak and learn the Ukrainian language or preserve their Ukrainian identity
This war --as bad as it is-- is nothing close to some of the worst wars we've seen in the last 100 years.
Stealing children actually meets the definition of genocide.
The relatively low civilian casualty count isn't because "Russians are so noble", but because:
1. Frontlines are static, giving civilians plenty of time to evacuate
2. Civilians actually have where to evacuate, Ukraine is big and covered by an extremely dense air defense network. Women and children can also freely go to the EU.
3. Ukraine has received an unprecedented amount of humanitarian aid.
[1] - https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/ublj5l/luhan...
> The relatively low civilian casualty count isn't because "Russians are so noble"
I was not arguing their nobility, I was saying the word genocide may have been to easily used in Ukraine's case.
Genocide does not need numbers, genocide is defined in international law and that definition has to be met. It's currently being investigated by a number of organizations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukr...
But maybe those millions of people were also not a "real genocide".
And the Jews should also calm down when people start shouting Heil Hitler.
Or the blacks when people start talking about lynchings.
At any rate, whether it is or isn't "genocide" or whether it is or isn't "low on civ casualties" isn't important. It's a stupid invasion and every single casualty is a murder. Whether you want to classify this as "genocide" is a mostly unimportant semantic matter that distracts from the real issue.
Anders Puck Nielsen just made a good video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9n77DPJ7AE
Thus resulting a lot of civ casualties. If it's genocide is for ever up to debate. Civ casualties are usually not that debatable. Without a large number (%) of civ deaths in some place there cannot be a genocide.
For the most part "mass murder" and "genocide" have a lot of overlap. But it's not the same crime.
2) Number of civilian causalities is unknown, because part of territory is under occupation. However, excavation of mass-graves on liberated territories shows that Russians are ready to kill few percents of population. [2]
3) Ukrainian air defense is in much better shape now, so hundreds of Russians missiles are shot in flight. Russians are bombing civilians in cities with cassette bombs from the start of war[3], so low numbers of causalities is caused by good defense, not by good will of terrorist state which performs genocide of Ukrainians right now.
[1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221118IP...
[2]: https://www.space.com/ukraine-mass-grave-bucha-satellite-pho...
[3]: https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/interactive/2023/02/21/deat...
Ukraine is NOT using its population as human shields. There is no evidence of that. So every civil casualties that Russian inflicts on Ukrainians (which includes destroying infrastructure, sieging cities and deporting children, among other things like what happened in Butcha) is deliberate.
Nonetheless, I do find the claim they are using human shields as interesting. Whatever you think of Hamas' aims and methods (and I strongly disapprove of both), Palestinians engaged in conflict are by necessity fighting a guerrilla war against an occupying power. No, Israel is not in direct control of Gaza -- but it does have the capacity to use overwhelming force against any part of it, so it might as well be for the purposes of fighting a war.
Let's assume we are not pacifists and we think armed struggle is _sometimes_ justified (as do both the US and Israel). From the perspective of someone who viewed the establishment of Israel as illegitimate, and the occupation of Gaza unlawful, and Israel's action in Gaza and the West Bank as immoral, what would be the right course of action here?
From that perspective it might seem reasonable to plan and carry out sabotage against Israeli forces (I know that is not all Hamas have done -- they have also murdered civilians, but this is irrelevant to this argument).
There were many resistance movements in the 20th century that are now approved-of by Israel and allies. Was it illegitimate for French resistance fighters (for example) to plan attacks from civilian villages and hide weapons in farmhouses etc? This accusation of using human shields (which predates the current conflict) sometimes strikes me is part of a process to 'other' the Palestinian cause and render it a priori illegitimate, which does't help anyone.
Edit: I recognise this post could upset some people at the moment. It's really not my intention. It's posed as a genuine question and something for us all to reflect on. I might be wrong/misguided but interested to discuss.
All politicians leaders of Palestinian people have eventually refused a 2-states solution. Israël does recognize a few groups as valid diplomatic partners but not Hamas, who is in charge right now. And yes that will lead to a lot of harsh suffering for Palestinian people, partly/mostly because of the way Hamas has handled things.
Note that I'm not downplaying what Israël has done in the region so far, and I'm not giving them excuses ; they do what they think is best for their security, rightfully or wrongfully, given that their neighbour is lead by a terrorist group. I'm not sure how I would react as a civilian or a leader of either country and I would certainly not advise anything to anyone. But clearly Hamas is the agressor just like Russia is the agressor in Ukraine (and both have intention of destroying not only the state but also the people).
That is, if and when Hamas is eradicated, which is a big if. A war with Iran isn't out of the question. Thing is Hamas represents like 35% of votes ? It's both a lot and very little. Maybe 10% of those 35% would actually be ok to take an assault weapon and resist. Meaning the vast majority would probably be ok to negotiate even a mediocre deal but owning their land and borders ? Can we even make a forecast like this ?
Edit : Bottom line, Palestinians will obviously and sadly be in a terrible position to negotiate, if and when that happens...
You need far fewer than 10% if a population to cause havoc for decades to come. I’m not condoning it, but the reality is that unless settlements are moved and Israel takes some bitter medicine this will reoccur in 10 years time when the next round of radicalised people come of age.
Remember, Netanyahu had been actively using Hamas as a way to divide the Palestinians and make 2 state solution less likely. the approach of Israel over the past 20 years doesn’t make the attacks right or justify them, but it made them more likely because it has humiliated a large enough population living very close to them and left them with no other effective options beyond nonviolent resistance. I wish they had chosen that, but it’s easier to say than live with.
It does however have a complete blockade on Gaza, and has done for decades. It also has control over a signifiant amount of territory inside the wall -- get too close and you get shot.
Gaza is on the sea, but you can't import water, fuel, food etc from the sea because Israel will sink any boat trying to.
Fairly certain Hamas wasn't the one who shoved 2.5 million people in a tiny location with no way out.
https://twitter.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/171364155785989337...
I've so far only seen acquisitions of Hamas using human shields. One could argue the hostages are humans shields, but (a) IDF bombs Gaza regardless, (b) they are not prominently shown (as the IDF documentedly did), and (c) at least some of them survived and were traded for palestinians (that were often held without trial, so could we call them "hostages" as well?).