War Crimes Happening In RealTime

The ICC is supposed to be a deterrent, but is it?

As we embark on day 16 of the Ukrainian conflict, the reality of a ceasefire before the end of the week is unlikely. More cities are being targeted in Ukraine, and while Ukrainians find refuge in other countries, that is not a solution to the problem. People talk of the possibility of the Russians being tried for war crimes, and I find that kind of talk disconcerting, for war crimes are being permitted, and they are happening in real time.

The idea of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was to try war crimes that affected the world, but the process is long winded and the court relies on other states to make arrests as it has no police force of its own. For an investigation you need witnesses, but you can’t get statements from the dead, and then there are those who will be too afraid to speak.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/situation.aspx

So, we have the ICC investigating crimes as they happen, and NATO who are in part allowing some crimes to be carried out because they don’t wish to appear to directly engage in war. There is no easy answer to this, nor is there a perfect one for NATO (1949) and the ICC(2002) are both entities that were created to deter heinous crimes. When these deterrents fail, then what do they do? That is the situation we find ourselves in, as what exists wasn’t good enough to protect Ukraine.

From what I gather, the premise of requesting the ICC to investigate the Ukrainian invasion is to scare the Russians into retreating. Obviously that has not worked, nor did I think it would for many dictators do not recognize the court, and remain under the radar in states where they cannot be arrested. There is a potential adverse affect, in that should the Russians be tried for war crimes, then they will make sure there is no evidence to find, which means they are likely to make sure no one can testify. You can see there is a double-edged sword here, because it was right to refer the case to the ICC, but it also means that the hostile state would cover their tracks more readily, and dispose of the evidence (as in witnesses), and thus a witness who stood a chance of survival might be considered a potential inconvenient witness.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2022_01791.PDF

Also, the referral requests an investigation for crimes since 2013, which is nine years ago before the illegal annexation of Crimea. I’m not blaming the states for their apathy, but even the Ukrainians knew it was a matter of time before the Russians tried to take the land again, and so if the ICC investigation had been referred back in 2014, perhaps we would not be where we are now? The 40 States left it about eight years too late to report this, perhaps through apathy, or a belief that the image of NATO was so powerful and strong that no one would dare challenge them?

There are different rules of engagement for acts of terrorism, which is why Zelenskyy has asked the world to recognize the invasion as such, such as the circumstances where you are permitted to take specific actions or use force. You do not negotiate with terrorists, but how do you define terrorism these days as there are different types?

The UN in 1994 described terrorism as;

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

We should look at the cost to human lives and the destruction of cities and towns that have taken centuries to build—gone in a matter of minutes, and whether debating the definition of an attack or if it is a terrorist act justifies defensive measures is humane, rational, or sensible. Overthinking an issue and wondering whether it is just to intervene to prevent deaths is not helping the civilians of Ukraine who are being killed.

With all the sanctions that have taken place, the question is whether they will work or make a difference to the Russian troops? We know that it will affect the Russian civilians, but that will not stop the military which is the aim of the sanctions and to squeeze Putin and his supporters. They would have planned this since 2014, and were aware that sanctions would be imposed and probably had a plan for that. What happens to the civilians—their suffering appears to be of little concern to those in the Kremlin?

Companies hope to trade in Russian when the invasion is over, but since many have recently accepted that this won’t be over in a few days (as they had hoped) or a week, they want to keep their foot in the door as money talks. The Russian market has been profitable, and companies don’t want to lose the market after the Covid-19 losses.

Even professional service are severing links with Russian clients—Freshfields (law firm) has severed ties with clients who have Russian connections, accountancy firms such as Deloitte, and KPMG had opted not to have offices in Russia, and McKinsey has stated they will not longer retain any Russian state entities as clients. That is their stance for now, but who knows if these businesses will return? They must think of their other clients who may dispense with their services if they choose to represent Russian businesses.

Some companies such as Burger King, and Marks & Spencer have condemned the invasion, but have not paused, suspended or closed their Russian business interests as yet because many are franchised. Other companies in the same situation (such as KFC) have made agreements with their franchisees. Inaction may cause the global image to suffer longterm.

Many companies that have stalled over what to do in the hope that it would all be over by now must face the pressure of being criticized if they do not support democracy, and will appear as if they are pro-Russian by failing to condemn the invasion. Most are pledging profits as donations, and sending goods to help with the refugees. Everyone is doing what they can, but we are helpless in the hand-to-hand fight against Russia for that is in the hands of the politicians and the bodies such as NATO and the UN.

The no-fly zone that has been requested has been denied each day, for we all now know that would mean that World War III has started. Instead of a no-fly zone, the UK is potentially offering Ukraine the STARstreak high velocity missile which is a portable defence system where low flying aircraft can be detected and missiles launched to counter the attack at speeds of more than Mach 4. The issue is if the equipment gets into the wrong hands, then what?

Will the announcement of the supply of weapons act as a deterrent to the Russians or will it give them a heads up as to what they will have to fight, or maybe they wish to steal the weapons? Was it even wise to publicly announce what weapons will be donated? This information was released in a worldwide press conference and has been reported in the media for the last few days as an alternative to the requested no-fly zone.

Day 16 (11 March)

• Further cities are being targeted; Lutsk and Dnipro, Ivano-Frankvisk, Volnovakha (reported to have been captured), and Mykolaiv have been attacked.

• The Russian move in closer to Kyiv the prime target.

• Social media has come under pressure as they fight propaganda and fake news being spread. Meta (Facebook) is allowing posts and comments that oppose the Russians, where the Russians are declaring the company an extremist group and could be banned.

• Images of funerals of the fallen Ukrainian soldiers who fought to defend Ukraine are released. This shows us the human cost of apathy, the consequences of red tape, and the failures of NATO.

• Many victims are buried in mass communal graves.

• Putin has threatened any country that interferes with his ‘special military operation’ that there will be severe consequences that have ‘not been experienced in your history’. Some interpret this as a threat to use chemical weapons.

• The UN Security Council will hold emergency meetings to discuss the claims of chemical weapons being used, at the request of the Russians. This has been suggested as a way for the Russians to use the UN as a means to spread disinformation. Russian accused Ukraine of having biological weapons but offered no proof of the claims.

• More sanctions have been imposed against Russians, but when there is nothing left to sanction, then what?

• The US has now banned imports on Russian alcohol, diamonds, and seafood. I see these bit by bit measures as pointless, just ban all imports in one go! None of this will affect those in the Kremlin.

• More companies cut ties with Russia, including Warner Music, Goldman Sachs (bank), and Western Union. Other institutions are severing ties with those who have Russian connections.

• Disney has ‘paused’ all their businesses in Russia, but have retained all employees.

• The UK has expanded the availability of refugee visas to those eligible. The proper paperwork and checks must be made in the interests of national security and cannot be rushed. Critics may shout that they should dispense with the paperwork, but this is how Russian double agents slip through the net, and that can cause security issues at a later date as we have witnessed through domestic terrorism and other Russian led incidents.

• YouTube and Instagram has imposed restrictions on material discussing the invasion. YouTube has blocked access to Russian state media, and will block material that denies factual events. Instagram appears as if will be banned as an extremist group, as it claims they allow posts that oppose the Russian military and call for them to be attacked.

• China continues to trade with Russia, which defeats the purpose of the western sanctions if the Chinese market props up the Russian economy.

• During the UN Security Council meeting, China pledged to help de-escalate the crisis.

• Belarus may join Russian troops in the invasion as they are pro-Russian and a client state.

• US veterans have tried to join the war to help Ukraine fight, but this may cause international problems, and the US government have stated that they cannot provide any measures to evacuate them if necessary. They will also be targets as potential hostages (as will all other citizens of NATO countries) and that may cause more issues for all the governments concerned.

• There are reports that several Russian generals have been killed.

• There is a report that the mayor (Ivan Fedorov) of Melitopol has been kidnapped as he was accused of terrorism. Hostages and kidnappings are to be expected during a war, and are classed as war crimes under the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, dictators don’t take much notice of such rules that they don’t believe apply to them. The town was illegally and forcibly occupied by a foreign state, and the aggressors have no jurisdiction.