Despite all documented war crimes and the openness of Russian intentions, articulated in their public channels agenda, several propositions about the ceasefire appear from different world political figures. They refer to the idea that primarily it would stop people’s losses.
Indeed, even the most vulnerable age category — children are also the focus of the Russian propagandist’s threats. This is proved by the constant physical danger of being deported or killed. In this article, the peril of the continuation of Russian atrocities will be explained.
Propaganda, which indicates the intentions
Russian propaganda contains antihumanistic statements and narratives. On the governmental channels of communication, they openly articulate their main goal in war: to exterminate the Ukrainian nation. Those aggressive claims could also be referred to children directly.
For example, on the 20th of October 2022 in his program “Antonymy” on the “Russia Today” channel, which is financed by the Russian government, in a conversation with the science fiction writer Sergey Lukyanenko, its propagandist Anton Krasovsky suggested drowning Ukrainian children in a river or burning them, which cost him his job position. However, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation did not classify it as extremism, so Anton continued building his career in Russia.
And it was necessary to drown such children directly in the Tisza [River], right there, where the “ducklings swim” (the reference to the Ukrainian folk song). It’s right to drown these children. Stoke! Right in the Tisza. This is not your method, since you are intelligent people and science fiction writers. But this was our method. The child says to you “We are occupied by Muscovites” — and immediately you throw it directly into the river’s violent, turbulent currents.
Moreover, in Russia, he is possessed as a so-called liberal. In 2011, Anton Krasovsky headed the campaign of the presidential candidate Mikhail Prokhorov, the rival of Putin. Despite this fact, In 2012 Anton with his friends Sergey Minaev and Artak Gasparyan founded the channel “Kontr.tv”, sponsored by the Kremlin Foundation. One year later he left it because of the homophobic episode, since Krasovsky is an open gay. In 2018 he worked for Ksenia Sobchak’s office, when she ran for presidency, also as Putin`s competitor. After that, he claimed that he would like to join “United Russia2, a dominating pro-Putin political party. In February 2021, the journalist conducted an interview with the terrorist, who the District Court of The Hague found guilty of destroying the airliner MH17, Igor Girkin “Strelkov”.
The facts in the biography of Anton Krasovsky indicate that he mimics an alternative vision, working on behalf of governmental interests.
Furthermore, even though Anton apologized for his statements, he has not changed his mind about Ukrainian children. One year later, during the recording of one of the podcasts, on the question of whether he thinks the same way he responded “Yes” the literal dialog is the following:
Krasovsky: I didn’t say that they should be killed, although I once said that “they should be drowned and burned.”
Host: Has your attitude towards Ukrainian children changed since then?
Krasovsky: No (after which the audience laughs loudly).
One propagandist resistance to critics and advocacy of position indicates general Russian public information policy and intentions direction. The further war goes, the more evident and transparent anti-human narratives become.
The attacks, targeted children
The calls for killing are performed by the Russian troops. On the 8th of July, Russia launched a direct missile attack on “Ohmatdyt”, the biggest in Ukraine Kyiv’s hospital, the toxicology building, where children received dialysis was ruined. For now, it is known that two people were killed, ten, six of which are children, injured, and 600 patients evacuated. The rescue operation continues. Three children were killed in other places.
What happened today in Okhmatdyt is one of the most massive war crimes against children that happened during all these 11 years of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine.
This strengthens our desire and need to create a special tribunal for the crime of aggression for Putin and the top political military leadership. It also means, and we have evidence that this was a direct attack that is genocidal in nature.
International organizations and global partners had direct contact with American partners who are ready to restore equipment and help one of the largest children’s clinics in the World, – Maria Mezentseva, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, Head of the Subcommittee on Approximation of Ukrainian Legislation to EU Legislation, Head of the Permanent
The detailed explanation of consequences of the attack and the observation of world’s media as well as Ukrainian and Western political actors’ reactions to a terrorist act are in our article.
Regarding this, an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the incident is initiated. It is not the first example of a massive terrorist deliberate attack. On March 16, 2022, the Russian military struck the Mariupol Drama Theater, which was used as a shelter. The inscription “Children” in front of it was ignored. Because of the occupation, it is not possible to indicate the number of victims, Mariupol City Council said that approximately 300 people were probably killed, but the actual number could be higher.
According to last update of the platform “Children of the war”, the data for which is provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, it is verified that Russia killed 555 children, injured 1437 and kidnapped 19546. However, it is not possible to count it precisely because of the occupation, so the number is bigger in reality. ‘The Ukrainian Review” has an interview about the stolen Ukrainian children, where attitudes towards them, the law framework and Russia’s reasons for resisting their return to Ukraine are explained in details.
The Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights explained, which mechanisms of international law help to emphasize contradiction between the statements of propagandists promoting the ideas of destruction the Ukrainian nation, and the official rhetoric of the Russian Federation regarding denial of genocide:
In the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide and its Punishment, which adopted by the United Nations in 1948, defined genocide as “an act which are committed with the intention of destroying in whole or in part any national,ethnic, racial or religious group”.
Statements by Russian propagandists who call for the destruction of Ukrainians can be considered as evidence of intent to commit genocide under this Convention.
Olga Altunina, a Representative of the Commissioner on the rights of citizens, and victims as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine also gave examples of the effective legal ways of putting pressure on the aggressor country:
States and international organizations can apply sanctions against Russia to to force it to stop its aggression against Ukraine and to bring it to justice guilty of crimes against humanity. Sanctions can include asset freezing, trade restrictions and travel ban for persons involved in crimes against Ukraine. In addition, it is important that Ukrainian society documents and collects evidence of Russia’s crimes against Ukraine.
Moreover, there is an example of research, dedicated to the topic of Russian propaganda`s narratives:
The problem of contradictions between the slogans of the propaganda deeply incorporated into the Russian government and the statements of the top military and political leadership of the Russian Federation has been thoroughly investigated in the report of the New Lines Institute’s report “Independent Legal Analysis of the Violation of the Genocide Convention by the Russian Federation on the Genocide in Ukraine and the Responsibility to Prevent”, in particular in the section “Creating a basis for for Incitement to Genocide: Denying the Existence of a Ukrainian Group”. The report contains an exhaustive analysis of the genocidal model of extermination aimed at Ukrainians, namely: mass killings; deliberate attacks on shelters, evacuation routes and humanitarian corridors; indiscriminate bombing of residential areas; deliberate and systematic creation of life-threatening conditions (destruction of critical infrastructure; attacks on security infrastructure; attacks on the healthcare system, destruction and seizure of essential of basic necessities, humanitarian aid and grain), rape and sexual violence; forced displacement of Ukrainians, etc.
The report also outlines the “traditional” narratives of the Russian authorities, which are media, and provides a chronological overview of them in the context of the Kremlin’s genocidal policy. The provisions of the report, published in May 2022, remain relevant today, — she wrote.
To evaluate the work of the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, the value of their sentences in context of negotiations and the legal classification of Russian propaganda statements, we spoke with Olga Poiedynok, lawyer, candidate of legal sciences, associate professor of the international law department of the Institute of International Relations of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv:
The work of the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine is one of the first but necessary interim steps in anticipation of the creation of a respective international tribunal. Together with the future tribunal, ICPA responds to the pressing need to ensure accountability of those responsible for the most egregious violation of international peace since the end of the Second World War. ICPA is sufficiently effective at this stage as its role is to pave the way for the Tribunal.
I am convinced that prosecuting individuals responsible for this barbaric war of aggression and territorial conquest is the only way to restore the international rule of law. As regards negotiations with the aggressor, their potential scope is severely limited under international law. Negotiations are meant to result in treaties. However, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes it clear in Article 52, any treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. The time for negotiations and for treaties only comes when the aggressor state is defeated. The work of ICPA and the future creation of the Tribunal help cement this understanding.
As regards statements of the so-called “political technologists” about the destruction of the Ukrainian nation, including children, those can well be described as incitement to genocide, which in itself is a crime under international and domestic law of most countries in the world.
Regardless of the established facts, there are claims about negotiations between Ukraine and Russia that appear publicly. For example, in the interview for “Poticio,” 3 representatives of the GOP said that the settlement is inevitable. They suggest Ukraine cede territories for that.
The reality at this point that we have to confront is that that war ends with a negotiated settlement, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the question is — when they finally figured that out — when we finally get to that when we finally get to that point, who has more leverage — [Russian President Vladimir Putin] or Ukraine?”, said Sen. Marco Rubio vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The motivations behind calls for reconciliation
After the deoccupation of Ukrainian territories, several tortured civilians were found. The idea that a ceasefire would stop murders and other crimes is deceiving.
Oleh Wolowyna, the director of the Center for Demographic and Socio-Economic Research of Ukrainians in the US at the Shevchenko Scientific Society in New York shared his opinion about the negotiations. He differentiates two types: those, who are aware of the scale of Russian crimes and ignore them continuously and those who are not:
Note: These comments apply only to politicians. There are also commentators, journalists, “experts”, and opportunists who also advocate negotiations, but will not be considered here. Those who know: some do not want to acknowledge Russia’s war crimes, but the key question is why:
a) immediate goals: time to get over it, it is affecting the economy
b) have a larger agenda:
c) “realist” foreign policy: political, strategic goals are more important than people’s suffering and lives, moral considerations take second or third place, the US as a superpower has the right to dictate its policy to other countries, in some cases can ignore human rights and/or international law to achieve its objectives.
d) “good old comrades”: politically and ideologically oriented towards the Soviet Union and now Russia, willing to support Russia and endanger the security of the US.
For decades, a lot of Soviet Union crimes were silenced. For example, only 33 states of the US recognized the Holodomor of 1932-1933 as genocide. The lack of understanding of Russia’s permanent national strategies causes false conclusions. The professor outlined the main motivations for promoting ceasefire unconsciously avoiding the possible outcomes:
Those who do not know:
a) Do not know history, especially Soviet/Russian history (the Soviet Union was basically a Russian Empire in disguise). History tells us that the Russians broke every treaty they signed; they only respect force; and will lie, cheat, spread misinformation, and yield only when they realize that there is no way out.
b) Are not familiar with the new international order developed by the US and Western countries after WWII, which has prevented so far another world war. One of its key elements is the respect of national borders.
c) Are not aware of the strategic implications if Putin wins the war: the China – Russia–North Corea–Iran axis and other countries.
d) Impact on aid for Ukraine: the call for negotiations will create the expectation that there is no more need to help Ukraine, as negotiations will soon end the war.
Also wrote the compass how The international community should respond to media calls for genocide:
– use of norms and procedures by the UN General Assembly (UN Security Council).
UN Charter to deprive the Russian Federation as an aggressor of the opportunity to influence by decision of the UN Security Council. Further international isolation of the Russian Federation by removal of the aggressor from key international institutions; maximum assistance to the activities of the International Criminal Court in bringing to responsibility for war crimes committed by their perpetrators and the military and political leadership of the Russian Federation. Introduction of effective mechanisms for investigating of violations of international humanitarian law by Russia in the temporarily occupied territories territories by intensifying international dialogue on the establishment of a a special tribunal;
– use of the principle of universal jurisdiction by EU institutions and member states
of universal jurisdiction for the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators to the organizers of war crimes in Ukraine;
– strengthening sanctions pressure and ensuring unconditional compliance with
sanctions against the Russian Federation by the international community;
– full implementation of the mandates of international organizations, in particular
conventional bodies within the UN system and the International Committee of the Red Cross to to ensure the protection of human rights in the occupied territory of Ukraine and in the Russian Federation, as well as to monitor the fulfillment by the aggressor state of its obligations obligations;
– implementation and application of the international compensation mechanism as an element of a comprehensive system of as an element of a comprehensive system of responsibility of the Russian Federation for its unlawful actions, in particular, the confiscation of Russian state assets and their use to support the reconstruction of Ukraine;
– Assistance in the implementation of the communiqué of the Swiss Peace Summit, in particular in the mutual repatriation of all prisoners of war; the return to Ukraine of all deported and illegally displaced Ukrainian children and all other Ukrainian illegally detained civilians.
The only Russian motivation to ask for negotiations is to obtain time for the preparation for a new offensive. Propagandist Daniil Bezsonov at the beginning of 2024 openly said that Russia considers the Ukrainian people as a resource for the future war with NATO. It indicates that time, set after negotiations, will be used to increase the defense complex, occupy the entire Ukraine, and continue the aggression against other countries.
The chance for democracy
Oleh Wolowyna outlined the main arguments against negotiations:
Putin is not interested in serious negotiations. Negotiations imply compromise; Putin does not want to compromise. His recent negotiation proposal demands complete capitulation of Ukraine and its domination by Russia.
In his speech before the Ukraine Peace Summit in Switzerland Putin articulated his negotiation conditions: the withdrawal of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kharkiv, and Zaporizhia regions, as well as Ukrainian refusal to became a part of NATO. He requires even territories that Russia failed to occupy.
Oleh outlines historical forerunners:
It is necessary to have a chance to try to help transform Russian society from authoritarian and imperialistic to democratic and willing to coexist peacefully with its neighbors. Russia will always be a menace to its neighbors unless it is forced to start changing its society, abandon its imperialistic ambitions, and learn to live peacefully with its neighbors, a necessary condition for this is a defeat of Putin and hopefully, Russians will get rid of him and realize that force will be met with force and they have to start internal changes.
— Putin claims that the nation of Ukraine does not exist, that Ukrainians are confused Russians and if they do not admit that they are Russian, should be eliminated;
— He wants to reconstruct the former Soviet Union (actually the Russian Empire) and is willing to do it by force, by invading the Baltic countries, Poland, Moldova, etc.; c) his goal is to destroy the Western democratic order.
He also emphasized that countries with territorial ambitions are now observing the reaction to Russia’s actions or its absence in order to start their new invasions:
China is waiting for the outcome of the war in Ukraine, if Putin wins this will be interpreted as a weakness of the US and Western Europe and as a green light to invade Taiwan and expand its influence in the Pacific.
If Putin wins the war he will not stop at Ukraine but invade NATO countries and China will decide to invade Taiwan: The US will have to use American troops to defend NATO countries and Taiwan, at the cost of American lives and a much higher cost than the current aid to Ukraine.
Ukraine should be perceived as a platform to test new military technologies most effectively:
The war in Ukraine provides the Pentagon with a cheap and very effective way to test and perfect its current and new weapons, to learn tactics of what the actual war is, very different from the high-tech war, at no human cost for the US.
The ways to promote Ukrainian interests
Oleh also proposed effective communication strategies, which could help to change American and Western European policy vectors:
Humanitarians arguments:
— Some politicians may respond with action to the atrocities committed by the Russians, and that they see every day on TV: a) deliberate attacks on civilians; b) systematic destruction of energy infrastructure to freeze Ukrainians during the winter; c) torture and rape; d) systematic destruction of whole villages and towns.
— An important topic: kidnapping of children, brainwashing them into Russians, putting them up for adoption. It is impossible to negotiate with a person who commits these crimes.
However, empathy is not the universal key to persuasion. It is also necessary to foster an interest in partner countries’ benefits:
Strategic arguments:
Negotiating a treaty that Putin will accept will cost Ukraine part of its territory and Russia will not pay for the destruction it caused. This will have several consequences:
— Putin will be rewarded for attacking another country contrary to international law It will send a signal that the international order built by the US and Western Europe after WW II is dead;
— It will serve as an example to other authoritarian governments like Hungary.
— This will give Putin time to rebuild Russia’s economy, army, and weapons and within 2-3 years attack Ukraine again.
— Security defense treaties by the US and/or Western Europe are no guarantee that they will go to war with Russia to defend Ukraine. The best solution is to give Ukraine the arms it needs to expel the Russians from its territory and send a signal that the US and E. Europe will support Ukraine for the long haul.
Continuation of current support of Ukraine is a good deal for the US:
No troops involved; cost in arms a small fraction of the Pentagon budget; a good part of this “aid” is actually an investment into badly needed updating of the US weapons industry; the real-life testing of US weapons is a fraction of it would cost by simulations. The security benefits for the US are literally priceless.
Despite the arguments against negotiations and the challenges for the democratic world, that a ceasefire could bring, some politicians ignore them and articulate the position that negotiations could be beneficial. In the determinating time, it is necessary to deliver the explanation of why negotiations on the terms of Russia are not possible to broad audiences. It could be done by telling more stories about the war crimes and statistics as well as emphasizing the benefits of helping Ukraine. Instant solutions could sound relieving in the short perspective, but in the end, they will cause a deterioration.
