Message-ID:

It is wise to keep in mind that neither success nor failure is ever final. -- Roger Babson

FAILED ICJ CASE AGAINST RUSSIA BACKFIRES, PAVES WAY FOR GENOCIDE
CHARGES AGAINST UKRAINE

As January became February, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
delivered a pair of legal body blows to Ukraine and its Western
backers. First, on January 31, it ruled on a case brought by Kiev
against Russia in 2017, which accused Moscow of presiding over a
campaign of “terrorism” in Donbas, including the July 2014 downing of
MH17. It also charged that Russia racially discriminated against
Ukrainian and Tatar residents of Crimea following its reunification
with Moscow.

The ICJ summarily rejected most charges. Then, on February 2, the
Court made a preliminary judgment in a case where Kiev accused Moscow
of exploiting false claims of an ongoing genocide of Russians and
Russian speakers in Donbas to justify its invasion. Ukraine further
charged the Special Military Operation breached the Genocide
Convention despite not itself constituting genocide. Almost
unanimously, ICJ judges rejected these arguments.

Western media universally ignored or distorted the substance of the
ICJ rulings. When outlets did acknowledge the judgments, they
misrepresented the first by focusing prominently on the accepted
charges while downplaying all dismissed allegations. The second was
wildly spun as a significant loss for Moscow. The BBC and others
focused on how the Court agreed that “part” of Ukraine’s case could
proceed. That this “part” is the question of whether Kiev itself
committed genocide in Donbas post-2014 was unmentioned.

Ukraine’s failed lawfare effort was backed by 47 EU and NATO member
states, leading to the farce of 32 separate international legal teams
submitting representations to The Hague in September 2023. Among other
things, they supported Kiev’s bizarre contention that the Donetsk and
Lugansk People’s Republics were comparable to Al-Qaeda. Judges
comprehensively rejected that assertion. Markedly, in its submitted
arguments, Russia drew attention to how the same countries backing
Kiev justified their illegal, unilateral destruction of Yugoslavia
under the “responsibility to protect” doctrine.

This may not be the only area where Ukraine and its overseas sponsors
are in trouble moving forward. A closer inspection of the Court’s
rulings comprehensively discredits the established mainstream
narrative of what transpired in Crimea and Donbas following the
Western-orchestrated Maidan coup in February 2014.

In sum, the judgments raise serious questions about Kiev’s
eight-year-long “anti-terrorist operation” against “pro-Russian
separatists,” following months of vast protests and violent clashes
throughout eastern Ukraine between Russian-speaking pro-federal
activists and authorities.

DAMNING FINDING AFTER DAMNING FINDING

In its first judgment, the ICJ ruled the Donbas and Lugansk People’s
Republics were not “terrorist” entities, as “[neither] group has
previously been characterized as being terrorist in nature by an organ
of the United Nations” and could not be branded such simply because
Kiev labeled them so. This gravely undermined Ukraine’s allegations of
Russia “funding…terrorist groups” in Donbas, let alone committing
“terrorist” acts there itself.

Other revelatory findings reinforced this bombshell. The ICJ held that
Moscow wasn’t liable for committing or even failing to prevent
terrorism, as the Kremlin had no “reasonable grounds to suspect”
material provided by Ukraine, including details of “accounts, bank
cards and other financial instruments” allegedly used by accused
“terrorists” in Donbas, were used for such purposes. Moscow was also
ruled to have launched investigations into “alleged offenders” but
concluded they “d[id] not exist… or their location could not be
identified”.

Nonetheless, the ICJ ruled that Moscow had failed “to investigate
allegations of the commission of terrorism financing offenses by
alleged offenders present in its territory.” This was due to the
Kremlin not providing “additional information” upon Kiev’s request and
failing to “specify to Ukraine what further information may have been
required.” Ironically, judges conversely condemned Kiev’s allegations
of “terrorism” by Russia as “vague and highly generalized,” based on
highly dubious evidence and documentation, including – strikingly –
Western media reports:

The Court has held that certain materials, such as press articles and
extracts from publications, are regarded ‘not as evidence capable of
proving facts.’

The ICJ was also highly condemnatory of the quality of witnesses and
witness evidence produced by Kiev to support these charges. Judges
were particularly scathing of Ukraine’s reliance on testimony
supporting a systematic, state-sanctioned “pattern of racial
discrimination” discrimination against Ukrainians and Tatars in Crimea
since 2014. Statements attesting to this were “collected many years
after the relevant events” and “not supported by corroborating
documentation”:

The reports relied on by Ukraine are of limited value in confirming
that the relevant measures are of a racially discriminatory
character…Ukraine has not demonstrated… reasonable grounds to suspect
that racial discrimination had taken place, which should have prompted
the Russian authorities to investigate.

Elsewhere, Ukraine argued that “legal consequences” for residents of
Crimea if they opted to maintain Ukrainian citizenship post-2014 and a
“steep decline in the number of students receiving their school
education in the Ukrainian language between 2014 and 2016,” amounting
to an alleged 80% drop in the first year and a further 50% reduction
in 2015, were signifiers of a discriminatory environment for
non-Russians in the peninsula.

Ukraine War Crimes

Ukrainian soldiers patrol alongsidethe Donbas Battalion, a Ukrainian
militia, in Luhansk, July 26, 2014. Dmitry Lovetsky | AP
In support, Kiev submitted witness statements from parents claiming
they were “subjected to harassment and manipulative conduct with a
view to deterring” their children from receiving “instruction in
Ukrainian,” which judges did not accept. By contrast, Moscow provided
testimony not only demonstrating that parents made a “genuine” choice
“not subject to pressure” to have their children taught in Russian but
also “unresponsiveness on the part of parents to some teachers’ active
encouragement [emphasis added] to continue having their children
receive instruction in Ukrainian.”

The ICJ lent weight to these submissions, noting, “It is undisputed
that no such decline has taken place with respect to school education
in other languages, including the Crimean Tatar language.” Judges
attributed much of the drop in demand for Ukrainian language “school
instruction” to “a dominant Russian cultural environment and the
departure of thousands of pro-Ukrainian Crimean residents to mainland
Ukraine.” Moscow moreover “produced evidence substantiating its
attempts at preserving Ukrainian cultural heritage and… explanations
for the measures undertaken with respect to that heritage.”

Russia supplied documentation showing that “Ukrainian and Crimean
Tatar organizations have been successful in applying to hold events”
in the peninsula. In contrast, “multiple events organized by ethnic
Russians have been denied.” Evidently, Russian authorities are
even-handed towards Crimea’s population – the color of someone’s
passport and their mother tongue are immaterial. On the same grounds,
judges rejected Kiev’s accusation that “measures taken against Crimean
Tatar and Ukrainian media outlets were based on the ethnic origin of
the persons affiliated with them.”

Still, the Court contradictorily concluded Russia “violated its
obligations of the International Convention on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination,” as Moscow “[did not demonstrate] that it
complied with its duty to protect the rights of ethnic Ukrainians from
a disparate adverse effect based on their ethnic origin.”

How US and UK Government Propaganda Specialists Collaborated with
Nazis in Ukraine

The prominent role of Banderite Neo-Nazis in Ukraine's government
propaganda operations suggests that Nazi apologism has spread into the
core institutions of its government – perhaps more than the dominant
Western view is able to admit.

MintPress News·David Miller·Jul 28, 2023

KIEV GOES IN FOR THE KILL

The ICJ has now effectively confirmed that the entire mainstream
narrative of what happened in Crimea and Donbas over the previous
decade was fraudulent. Some legal scholars have argued Ukraine’s
acquittal on charges of genocide to be inevitable. Yet, many
statements made by Ukrainian nationalists since Maidan unambiguously
indicate such an intent.

Moreover, in June 2020, a British immigration court granted asylum to
Ukrainian citizens who fled the country to avoid conscription. They
successfully argued that military service in Donbas would necessarily
entail perpetrating and being implicated in “acts contrary to the
basic rules of human conduct” – in other words, war crimes – against
the civilian population.

Click here to read the complete article

Subject	Author
Failed ICJ Case against Russia backfires: paves way for genocide charges against	Steve Hayes
Re: Failed ICJ Case against Russia backfires: paves way for genocide charges aga	isten
Re: Failed ICJ Case against Russia backfires: paves way for genocide charges aga	Oleg Smirnov
Re: Failed ICJ Case against Russia backfires: paves way for genocide charges aga	isten
Re: Failed ICJ Case against Russia backfires: paves way for genocide charges aga	Steve Hayes

It is wise to keep in mind that neither success nor failure is ever final. -- Roger Babson

interests / soc.culture.russian / Re: Failed ICJ Case against Russia backfires: paves way for genocide charges against Ukraine

interests / soc.culture.russian / Re: Failed ICJ Case against Russia backfires: paves way for genocide charges against Ukraine