We cannot rule out that there was some necessity in placing Ukrainian forces in residential areas. It is only when the ministry presents its reasoning that anyone can claim that they have impermissibly endangered civilians (which can then be further assessed and, if necessary, criticized). Similarly, while Amnesty researchers were “not aware” if the Ukrainian military asked or assisted civilians to leave, the ministry could have presented them evidence that they did.
But this time, Amnesty did not even intend to request an official response; they did so only after insistence from the Ukrainian office, and they gave the Ukrainian ministry only three working days to respond — which is in no way a reasonable time frame.
Furthermore, if Ukraine’s armed forces were indeed found to be in breach of international law, a potential way of implementing the recommendations would have been further advocacy with the ministry. Ukraine has been keen to demonstrate compliance with its legal obligations, partly because of reliance on Western weapon deliveries, and partly due to a desire to integrate closely with the European Union. This presented a unique opportunity to get Ukraine’s armed forces to comply with their obligations. But again, pushing for actual actions did not seem to be the goal in this case.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member