Why Amnesty's report on the Ukrainian military is so bad

The authors don't understand urban warfare, Russian doctrine, and issues of logistics/supply

By now, you may have heard that Amnesty International has released a disastrous report that claims that the Ukrainian armed forces are “violating international humanitarian law” by using civilian infrastructure. The head of Amnesty’s Ukrainian branch resigned in protest after the report’s publication. To be 100% clear: This report has given Russia cover to bombard civilian buildings even more than they have already.

Tom Mutch, a war correspondent from New Zealand, tried to reason with the Amnesty team prior to the publication of the report. His recounting of what happened for Byline Times is damning. These are the words of Donatella Rivera, author of the report, that he cites:

“The most important thing I’ve learned about covering conflicts in over twenty years doing this job. Never take a side,” Rivera told me as I left the table in May. “All government’s lie to you, your job as a reporter or researcher is to be strictly impartial and report only the facts.”

On the surface, this seems almost reasonable. Amnesty is supposed to be impartial, right? Yet an alleged human rights defender cannot, in good faith, treat both Russia and Ukraine as equal sides in a Russian war of aggression, and neither can a human rights defender actively empower an aggressor to target civilians. This is what the report does, and adding a little note about how “we’re not excusing Russian war crimes blah blah” does not fix that.

Not taking a side in a war of aggression = siding with the aggressor. It’s like witnessing a domestic abuse situation and saying, “Well, two parties are involved, so…”

But, let’s break it down in terms of the realities of defensive urban warfare and Russian doctrine:

1. Every residential area the Russians occupy sees horrific war crimes and human rights abuses. I hope you don’t need me to tell you that, not after Bucha. If you need a refresher on what the Russians do, look at this [WARNING: HORRIFICALLY GRAPHIC] photos of occupied Popasna. Yes, that is a Ukrainian’s service member’s head on a stick. His cut off hands are on the fence behind the head. The body is in the foreground. Obviously, the Russians’ conduct means that Ukrainian defenders must stick to residential areas they hope to protect. This is common sense. I can’t believe I need to point this out.

2. Issues of supply, logistics, and basic safety mean that Ukrainians can’t simply fight Russians in the fields and forests as Amnesty suggests. When the report came out, I was very unpleasantly surprised, and spoke to Ukrainian volunteers and NGO workers who help to make sure Ukrainian defenders are well-supplied. I’m sorry that they are forced to point out something so basic, but soldiers need to eat and sleep. Yes, you can supply them out in the field, but not all the time, certainly not if they are to stand any chance against an invader. That’s besides basic military logistics. If you’ve ever heard the phrase “bullets don’t fly without supply” you know exactly what I’m talking about. Naturally, you can’t just have your soldiers hanging out in a field, exposed like sitting ducks either. These aren’t the Napoleonic Wars. I can’t believe I have to write these words out, but here we are.

3. The Ukrainian military simply can’t forcibly remove people from their homes if they decide to take up a defense position nearby. They’re not allowed to. Besides, being an IDP or a refugee is very hard, and carries its own horrific dangers (such as being trafficked). THEY DO URGE PEOPLE TO LEAVE, OVER AND OVER AGAIN (I guess Amnesty could care less about that bit), but there is a reason why some people choose to stay, regardless of risk. If the Ukrainian military understands this, why doesn’t Amnesty? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

4. There is a difference between offensive and defensive warfare. Ukrainians are waging a defensive campaign, the Russians an offensive one. Different standards apply if you hope to win. Again, why should any adult have to explain this to any other adult?! Why?

5. Russian doctrine = leveling the grid square. Simply put, Russians are instructed to not care how many civilians they blow up to bits/incinerate. Don’t believe me? Look up what happened to Grozny. Want a more recent example? Look up what happened to Aleppo. This is how Russians fight. It’s sickening, and this “all governments lie” BS from Amnesty draws a false equivalence between the Russians and those who seek to save themselves from the Russians. NONE OF THIS IS NEW. Russians have done this over and over again, and essentially saying, “Oh no, the Ukrainians are forcing their hand” is ahistorical, ludicrous, and frankly amoral.

This is a residential block in Kharkiv, as photographed by AP’s Felipe Dana. I guess in Amnesty’s view, the presence of a Ukrainian defender here means that Ukrainians brought it on themselves 🙄

As you can see, it’s not just the optics of the report. It’s that the report ignores reality in favor of Russia’s dark and twisted un-reality. It’s a real shame. Defenders of “impartiality” and the “everyone is to blame” narrative, many of them done in by Iraq, will disagree with me, but I don’t care about reaching those people, they made up their minds long ago. It’s why they’re such perfect regurgitators of Russian propaganda today.

Russia seeks to destroy the Ukrainian state and the very concept of what it means to be Ukrainian. Amnesty shouldn’t be helping them.