re: #66 ericblair

Point very well taken, but you’re ceding a point to AI you shouldn’t. Under the Geneva Conventions, you should take all reasonable precautions to avoid basing in civilian areas, but it’s a little difficult when you enemy is actively targeting these same civilian areas (you know, a clear war crime). Sure, go out in the woods where the enemy can just flank you and take the city. Why not.

And to head off another point, forcibly displacing civilians when they don’t want to leave is a war crime. So.

That’s fair. Agreed on all points. There are a couple of scenarios I see here.

1. Russia bombs/attacks an area.
Ukraine positions military forces there to protect them.
Russia falsely claims Ukraine is engaging in war crimes.

2. Russia looks like it might be massing for an attack on a city.
Ukraine prepositions military forces to defend the city, some of which are near civilian areas.
Russia claims Ukraine is engaging in war crimes, which may be technically correct but only by some twisted interpretation that would do Alito and Thomas proud, but not really by any reasonable definitions, based on sources that might have been coerced (i.e, people in Russian concentration camps.).

I’m guessing that what Ukraine did was both the first and maybe a bit of the second, and now Amnesty is blindly repeating the latter based on a misinterpretation of sources that might have been coerced (i.e, in Russian concentration camps).

Given Amnesty International’s good work, I’m still scratching my head as to why they fell for Russian propaganda.