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

Source: https://t.co/SSTdFUnP4W

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.

The Court’s ruling noted the Ukrainian military routinely engaged in
“unlawful capture and detention of civilians with no legal or military
justification…motivated by the need for ‘currency’ for prisoner
exchanges.” It added there was “systemic mistreatment” of detainees
during the “anti-terrorist operation” in Donbas. This included
“torture and other conduct that is cruel, inhumane and degrading
treatment.” An “attitude and atmosphere of impunity for those involved
in mistreating detainees” was observed.

The judgment also recorded “widespread civilian loss of life and the
extensive destruction of residential property” in Donbas,
“attributable to poorly targeted and disproportionate attacks carried
out by the Ukrainian military.” Water installations, it recorded,
“have been a particular and repeated target by Ukrainian armed forces,
despite civilian maintenance and transport vehicles being clearly
marked…and despite the protected status such installations enjoy”
under international law.

All of this could quite reasonably be argued to constitute genocide.
Regardless, the British asylum judgment amply underlines who Ukraine
was truly fighting all along – its own citizens. Moscow could
furthermore reasonably cite recent disclosures from Angela Merkel and
Francois Hollande that the 2014-15 Minsk Accords were, in fact, a con,
never intended to be implemented, buying Kiev time to bolster its
stockpiles of Western weapons, vehicles, and ammunition, as yet
further proof of Ukraine’s malign intentions in Donbas.

The Accords did not provide for secession or independence for the
Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics but for their full autonomy
within Ukraine. Russia was named a mediator, not a party, to the
conflict. Kiev was to resolve the dispute directly with rebel leaders.
These were crucial legal distinctions about which Ukraine and its
overseas backers were immensely displeased. They repeatedly attempted
over subsequent years to compel Moscow to designate itself formally as
a party to the conflict despite Russia’s minimal role in the conflict.

As a 2019 report published by the Soros-funded International Crisis
Group (ICG), “Rebels Without A Cause” found, “the conflict in eastern
Ukraine started as a grassroots movement… Demonstrations were led by
local citizens claiming to represent the region’s Russian-speaking
majority.” Moscow only began providing financial and material support
to the rebels after Ukraine’s “counter-terror” operation in Donbas
started in April 2014. And it was meager at that.

Ukraine War Crimes

Volunteer pro-Russian fighters bring aid to civilians living in
Donbas, February 01, 2022. Svetlana Kysilyova | Abaca | Sipa via AP
The ICG found that Russia’s position was consistent: the two breakaway
republics remain autonomous subjects within Ukraine. This frequently
put the Kremlin at significant odds with the rebel leadership, who
acted in their own interests and rarely followed orders. The report
concluded that Moscow was ultimately “beholden” to the breakaway
republics, not vice versa. Rebel fighters wouldn’t put down their arms
even if Vladimir Putin personally demanded them to.

Given present-day events, the report’s conclusions are eerie. The ICG
declared the situation in Donbas “ought not to be narrowly defined as
a matter of Russian occupation” and criticized Kiev’s “tendency to
conflate” the Kremlin and the rebels. It expressed hope that
newly-elected President Volodymyr Zelensky could “peacefully reunify
with the rebel-held territories” and “[engage] the alienated east.”

The 2017 ICJ case explicitly concerned validating allegations of
Russia’s direct, active involvement in Donbas. We are left to ponder
whether this lawfare effort was intended to secure Kiev’s specious
legal grounds for claiming it was invaded in 2014. After all, this
could, in turn, have precipitated an all-out Western proxy war in
Donbas of the kind that erupted in February 2022.

At the start of that month, French President Emmanuel Macron
reaffirmed his commitment to Minsk, claiming he had Zelensky’s
personal assurance it would be implemented. However, on February 11,
talks between representatives of France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine
collapsed after nine hours without tangible results. Notably, Kiev
rejected demands for “direct dialogue” with the rebels, insisting
Moscow formally designate itself a party to the conflict in keeping
with its past obstructionist position.

Then, as documented in multiple contemporary eyewitness reports from
OSCE observers, mass Ukrainian artillery shelling of Donbas erupted.
On February 15, alarmed representatives of the Duma, led by Russia’s
influential Communist Party, formally requested that the Kremlin
recognize the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Putin initially
refused, reiterating his commitment to Minsk. The shelling
intensified. A February 19 OSCE report recorded 591 ceasefire
violations over the past 24 hours, including 553 explosions in
rebel-held areas.

Civilians were harmed in the strikes, and civilian structures,
including schools, were apparently targeted directly. Meanwhile, that
same day, Donetsk rebels claimed they thwarted two sabotage attacks by
Polish-speaking operatives on ammonia and oil reservoirs in their
territory. Perhaps not coincidentally, in January 2022, it was
revealed that the CIA had been training a secret paramilitary army in
Ukraine to carry out precisely such strikes in the event of a Russian
invasion since 2015.

So, on February 21, the Kremlin formally accepted the Duma’s plea from
a week earlier to recognize Donetsk and Lugansk as independent
republics. And now here we are.

Feature photo | Pro-Russian Serviceman with a heavy machine gun
observing the movement of Ukrainian troops from the advanced trenches
of the people’s militia of the Donetsk People’s Republic in the Yasne
village area, Donbas, February 11, 2022. Svetlana Kysilyova | Abaca |
Sipa via AP2022. Svetlana Kisileva/Abaca/Sipa USA(Sipa via AP Images)

Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist and MintPress News
contributor exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping
politics and perceptions. His work has previously appeared in The
Cradle, Declassified UK, and Grayzone. Follow him on Twitter
@KitKlarenberg.

Source:
<https://www.mintpressnews.com/failed-icj-case-against-russia-backfires-paves-way-for-genocide-charges-against-ukraine/287028/>

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk