Eugene Finkel @eugene_finkel (4 April)
As a genocide scholar I am an empiricist, I usually dismiss rhetoric. I also take genocide claims with a truckload of salt because activists apply it almost everywhere now.
Not now. There are actions, there is intent. It's as genocide as it gets. Pure, simple and for all to see
Got questions about why I think it is genocide. Until this morning I resisted applying the term. War crimes? Sure. Heinous rhetoric? You bet. What changed is the combination of more and more evidence, from different places, and even more importantly, explicit official rhetoric
The official legal definition of genocide is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". When I teach genocide I start by saying that this definition has huge problems because it doesn't give us clear thresholds (what "in part" does even mean?) and because it is almost impossible to prove intent. People who carry out genocide are usually not idiots, if there are orders at all they would be given orally.
But, several things are important to realize. First, something that doesn't start as genocide might evolve into one when conditions change. Russian invasion, in my view, did not start with clear genocidal intent, but evolved into one. Regime change and colonial subjugation are by themselves not enough to constitute genocide.
Second, more evidence that Bucha is not an exception. Each massacre might be local initiative, together they are a campaign. And most importantly, the RIA Novosti (a state outlet) piece is one of the most explicit statements of intent to destroy a national group as such that I've ever seen
I know Russian. I have read a lot of Russian nationalist rhetoric in my life. This is not some wild intellectual fantasy, it is a clear, actionable statement of intent by a state agency. The UN definition is problematic, but in this case it fits like a glove
And a counter argument:
Jonathan Leader Maynard @jleadermaynard (4 April)
Is Russia committing genocide in Ukraine? I don’t claim to be a Russia-expert, but I am a scholar of genocide, mass killing, and atrocity crimes. So here’s a shortish thread
While it is unsurprising that @ZelenskyyUa would highlight Russian atrocities by calling them genocide, it’s too early to reach clear conclusions here. We basically know that Russia is committing atrocities in Ukraine, but the conditions for genocide are quite specific.
As stated in the Genocide Convention, genocide does not require an effort to wipe out an entire group, but it inivolves more that the killing of civilians or the perpetration of atrocities like rape, torture, mutilation etc. These could be genocidal acts but often aren’t.
Whether they are genocidal depends on their strategic intent: was this an effort to eliminate groups on the basis of their ethnicity, nationality etc. It’s extremely hard to get good data on the shape of – let alone the intent behind – such campaigns during ongoing conflict.
For mass killings in Guatemalan in 1978-83, for e.g., scholars still debate whether the violence was or was not genocidal (I think it was, but in a complex way – check out the work of Roddy Brett, Jennifer Schirmer, Virginia Garrard-Burnett, Manolo Vela Castañeda etc).
In Ukraine, we effectively know that Russia is committing serious abuses that directly target civilians, including cases of direct killings and rape. These are almost certainly war crimes.
Reporting is fragmentary at present: so the number of victims is likely much higher than cases we can currently confirm. This is unsurprising on three counts.
First, the Russian military’s past targeting of civilians in Chechnya and Syria (and earlier, Afghanistan).
Second, the Kremlin is now wrapped in a hardline ultranationalist ideology that sees a West-leaning Ukrainian state as an existential political and ideological threat to Russia (contrary to the longstanding myth that Putin is ‘unideological’).
Third, the fact that Russia’s war-effort has degenerated into a stagnant campaign in which conventional tactics have failed to achieve Putin’s aims, while the Ukrainian population organizes effective resistance – a classic scenario for atrocities.
Note that the common assertion that abuses against civilians are ‘inevitable’ in war is totally false. States have been found to directly target civilians in roughly 1/5 to 1/3 of all wars. Atrocities are appalling but not inevitable.
Moreover, for those tempted by whataboutery, I’d stress that while the American- and UK-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were appallingly stupid and destructive, they did not involve targeted killings of civilians of this kind (though the Vietnam War did).
We also have initial reports of the Russian army moving mobile crematoria into Ukraine – but I haven’t seen verified footage of this yet (video from the UK MoD appears to have been from pre-war).
So it’s almost certain that Russia is committing widespread abuses against civilians in Ukraine, and I would not be surprised if this was ultimately found to constitute mass atrocities – with over 1,000 civilian victims.
^But we lack good enough data at this stage, imo, to conclude that genocide is being committed. The leading NGO @genocide_watch
has not yet declared a genocide alert in the Ukraine. This obviously could change^
www.genocidewatch.com/countries-at-risk
So, we should a) be cautious about resorting to the language of genocide, which has a quite specific legal meaning, but b) highlight the clearest evidence of atrocities against civilians, while being aware of the irrevocable uncertainty of war. We will know more in time.
Both threads are from 3 days ago.
It was followed up by this:
Eugene Finkel @eugene_finkel (16hrs ago)
As expected, my claim that we see a genocide in Ukraine is being contested by several other scholars. That’s normal, that is what scholars do. What is more important is that even those who disagree with me (at least those views that I saw) and think that my genocide claim goes too far, especially given the limited data we have, still believe that at the very least we are talking about atrocity crimes. Put simply, the argument is not about whether Russia does truly horrible things to Ukraine and Ukrainians but which term describes the horror better
I concede the point, we still don’t have that much data. But for me, having years and years of training and experience studying these things also means the ability and the duty to make judgement under uncertainty and with incomplete data. That’s what I did. And once I reached this conclusion and decided that I am comfortable standing by it, there was no other option than saying what I think. Yes, it is good scholarship to wait for more data. But believing that a genocide is happening and waiting for more data before speaking up? No way
Jonathan Leader Maynard @jleadermaynard
Good follow-up thread by @eugene_finkel on the question of whether genocide is occurring in Ukraine. I fully endorse what he says: what is key here is that all serious scholars agree that atrocity crimes are underway in Ukraine, even if they are not genocidal.
There is also an article by Alex Hinton @AlexLHinton on the subject:
theconversation.com/is-russia-committing-genocide-in-ukraine-a-human-rights-expert-looks-at-the-warning-signs-180017
Is Russia committing genocide in Ukraine? A human rights expert looks at the warning signs
There’s a real threat that Russia will commit genocide in Ukraine. As evidence of war crimes emerges, there is reason to believe it may already be taking place.
and
The field of genocide studies, in which I have long worked, has developed frameworks for assessing the threat of genocide in such volatile situations. These tools, including one used by the U.N., indicate Ukraine is indeed at considerable risk for genocide
Genocide refers to “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
These acts involve not just killing people, but seeking to destroy the target group by causing “serious bodily or mental harm,” creating harsh “conditions of life,” preventing births and “forcibly transferring” children to another group.
One predictor for genocide is a history of mass human rights violations and atrocity crimes, including genocide.
Russia has a long history of mass violence against Ukrainians and other groups.
The article goes on to explain actions that Russia has carried out which would be consistent with Genocide.
Seeing the way this is moving I am most definitely with Eugene Finkel.
There is something horrible about genocide scholars standing around ignoring their extensive historical expertise in this field, because they are waiting for the eureka moment of sufficient evidence...
I do think the intent is there. And the more Russia slips into 'Z campaign' thinking and propaganda, the stronger it becomes because there is a clear purpose.