fact finder
Status: 08/10/2022 16:09
An Amnesty International report accuses the Ukrainian military of endangering civilians. Kyiv rejects the accusations. What do other aid organizations and experts say about this?
By Pascal Siggelkow, Fact Search Editors at ARD
“Ukrainian Combat Tactics Put Civilians in Danger”: This is the headline of an investigative report by aid organization Amnesty International on violations of international law in the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine. In it, Amnesty complains that Ukrainian troops are deliberately using civilian facilities such as schools or hospitals as military outposts – and thus putting civilians at risk unnecessarily.
Reactions to the report were not long in coming: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke of a “manipulative report”, and the head of Amnesty Ukraine resigned in protest. The human rights organization itself stood by the allegations – but distanced itself from the appropriation of the report by Russian state media.
Cities are “main targets” of the Russian army
Ulf Steindl, a researcher at the Austrian Institute of European Policy and Security, sees major flaws in the Amnesty report. Among other things, the impression would be given that “Russian attacks on civilian buildings are carried out mainly because Ukrainian units are there”. However, there is no evidence of this.
“Instead, Russian units have been using weapons against residential areas since the early days of the war,” says Steindl. “This appears to follow a clear strategy designed to incite terror among the population and consequently lower morale.” Furthermore, the Ukrainian army rarely has a choice of where to defend. “The main objective of the Russian military has been repeatedly to capture urban centers.” Because of the targeted attacks against residential buildings, it makes sense to deploy Ukrainian troops for defense.
For this, the Ukrainian army needs staging areas, logistical infrastructure, hospitals and protection, which is why schools and hospitals often need to be taken over. Amnesty’s report lacks details and does not provide sufficient evidence of Ukrainian misconduct, Steindl said. “This does not mean that there was no misconduct on the Ukrainian side.”
Allegations against the Ukrainian army are not new
The allegations against the Ukrainian military are not entirely new. The human rights organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) had already warned in July that Ukrainian and Russian military bases would put civilians in danger. Specifically, the organization criticized the fact that both armies had established military bases in populated areas without first bringing residents to safety – a violation of international humanitarian law.
HRW wrote at the time of four cases under investigation in which Russian forces established military bases in populated areas and needlessly threatened civilians. In three cases, Ukrainian forces stationed troops in homes where people lived.
A report by the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) also accused the Ukrainian army of deploying troops near civilian installations. At the same time, however, the OHCHR has listed a significantly greater number and range of possible human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Russian soldiers.
“It’s a dilemma for Ukraine”
Erich Vad, a former military policy adviser to Chancellor Angela Merkel, finds Amnesty’s claims plausible. Ukraine would be interested in moving the fighting to urban areas if possible. “Military is the only way for Ukraine to slow down the Russian advance.” However, fighting in urban areas is often protracted and, in any case, very bloody. “It’s obviously a dilemma for Ukraine,” says Vad.
A threat to civilians is therefore virtually inevitable. “Russia, on the other hand, wants to minimize casualties in urban areas, so it uses artillery to attack,” says Vad. As a result, both sides to the conflict would accept that civilians would be injured or killed.
Ralph Thiele, president of the Political-Military Association, has a similar opinion. “Moving the fight to urban areas is a classic weapon of the weakest in a war,” he says. But this is exactly what increases the likelihood of civilian casualties.
“From a military point of view, a tried and true method”
“From a military standpoint, it’s a tried and true method,” says Vad. “The attacker needs to use more resources and has more casualties, so it is difficult to place any blame on the Amnesty International report.” Because avoiding a pitched battle outside inhabited areas is often the only way to resist a materially superior opponent. This was also practiced in previous wars, such as in Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq.
Vad explains his outrage at Amnesty International’s report on the fact that Ukraine, as a country under attack, is viewed morally differently in the West than Russia. “We are in an information war.” Therefore, any misconduct will obviously be used by the other side for propaganda purposes. Thiele agrees. “A critical questioning of Ukraine is not wanted,” says Colonel a. D. “However, we must apply our values to both parties in conflict.”
All parties to a conflict must comply with international law
The excitement over the Amnesty International report has a lot to do with the way the allegations are framed and weighted. Zelenskyy, for example, spoke of a “perpetrator-victim reversal” as Russian war crimes would not be mentioned. While this certainly plays a role from a moral point of view, it must be assessed differently from an international law point of view, says Stefan Talmon of the University of Bonn.
“Each act of war is assessed individually, even if the Russian war of aggression is generally against international law,” says the holder of the chair of international law. All parties to a conflict are obliged to comply with international law. This also includes not putting civilians in danger. Military positions in civilian installations can be seen as “legitimate targets” and justify an attack, at least from an international law point of view.
Final assessment is not possible
That doesn’t mean, however, that the military is generally prohibited from operating near civilian populations and facilities, says Alexander Wentker, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. In practice, this is not even possible. “According to international law, the defending party is therefore obliged to endeavor to remove the civilian population and civilian property from the vicinity of military targets, to the extent possible.”
This includes avoiding the creation of military targets in or near densely populated areas. However, Amnesty’s claims could not be conclusively evaluated due to the large number of circumstances that play a role. “Additional, more detailed information on the cases listed by Amnesty International would be needed to assess Ukraine’s compliance or violation of these obligations.”