Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 27

Source for consideration

• Radio Free Europe Elinruby (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is good RS on the subject. Welcome to use it and make any other improvements on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2023

Remove Ukraine from the section "National Legal Proceedings/Other Countries". Ukraine obviously does not need to use universal jurisdiction, as the war crimes have taken place in its own territory. /2023-02-02 31.208.104.108 (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I used the wrong template. If I understand you correctly there should have been a debate/vote before, but I'm not "Wikipedia-literate", so I don't know how to do what you ask. I thought this was an obvious correction.

I searched the internet and read through almost all sources in Universal jurisdiction investigations of war crimes in Ukraine before posting the edit request, but could find no mentioning of Ukraine opening investigations of war crimes during the Russian re-invasion of Ukraine under universal jurisdiction. This IWRP article from September 20th 2022 interviews Mykola Pashkovsky, who according to the article is a member of the Ukrainian Association of International Law and associate professor at the National Academy of Law Sciences of Ukraine’s Institute for the Study of Crime, and discusses the use of universal jurisdiction in Ukraine. According to him there hadn't been any Ukrainian war crimes investigations under universal jurisdiction (until September 20th I assume), but that may of course have changed. /2023-02-03 31.208.104.108 (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove it since the source there doesn't say that Ukraine is doing that under universal jurisdiction Tristario (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Tristario (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Universal jurisdiction is an interesting subject. If I find information saying Ukraine has opened investigations under it, I'll post a new edit request. /2023-02-04 31.208.104.108 (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And again with the POV

The section title “Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering in the Makiyivka area” is obviously not neutral since it relates, in Wikivoice, the false Russian propaganda line that these soldiers were shot after they surrendered, rather than the fact that a Russian soldier opened fire on Ukrainians while other Russian soldiers tried to surrender. This is clear both from sources which mention perfidy and to anyone who watched the video. The “war crime” here is the false surrender/ambush, so please stop pretending otherwise. Volunteer Marek 13:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering in the Makiyivka area is very close to the sources. I know that titles are no sources, but note the titles used by our RSs:

• "Were Russian soldiers shot after surrendering?" (BBC)
• "Videos Suggest Captive Russian Soldiers Were Killed at Close Range" (NYT)
• "Russia says Ukrainian soldiers executed prisoners of war in Donbas region" (Guardian)
• "Moscow claims this footage shows the 'murder' of 'immobilised' Russian soldiers. Here's what we know" (ABC)
• "Ukrainian AG’s office investigates Russian POW execution video, suspects Makiivka captives of feigning surrender" (Meduza)

Other sources:

• "‘An emphatically provocative crime’ Videos which appear to show the killing of Russian prisoners of war circulate online" (Meduza)
• "UN examines video with possible execution of Russian prisoners of war" (EuroMaidanPress)
• "Russia accuses Ukraine of executing more than 10 POWs" Reuters
• "Russia accuses Ukraine of executing more than 10 POWs" Euronews

How does all this translate into your favoured False surrender of Russian soldiers in the Makiyivka area [1] [2] [3] or False surrender/shooting video [4]?

IMHO Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering in the Makiyivka area is perfectly neutral and it is also the commonly recognizable name of this incident per WP:CRITERIA. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Yeah, titles aren't sources. Here's what the sources say.

• BBC - "A Ukrainian official has claimed that the surrender was "staged" by Russian troops in an attempt to attack their captors. (...) A man emerges from behind a wall. He is armed and opens fire, apparently in the direction of the camera (Ukrainians)."
• NYT - "Ukraine’s commissioner for human rights, Dmytro Lubinets, saying Russian soldiers had opened fire during the act of surrendering. (...) As an 11th Russian soldier emerges from the outhouse, he opens fire, aiming at one of the Ukrainian soldiers. The Ukrainians are taken by surprise. The cellphone camera jolts away as the Ukrainian soldier filming the scene flinches. (...) The Russian gunman’s actions are critical, too, Dr. Vukusic said, and could be deemed perfidy — feigning surrender or noncombatant status as a ruse against the Ukrainians — which may be prosecutable as a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. “It may very well be that, had this guy not fired, that they all would have been captured as P.O.W.s, and survived,” Dr. Vukusic added.
• Guardian - well, first there's the very obvious "Russia says". Russia says a lot of shit. Most of which is completely false. That's kind of the point - why are you trying to make the section heading "what Russia says" (in Wikivoice no less)? Anyway - "One of the men wearing all black, however, seems to turn his gun on what appears to be a Ukrainian unit of soldiers wearing yellow armbands as he emerges from the half-destroyed outhouse." This source also does not reference this as a war crime, either way
• ABC - again "Moscow claims". See above about Moscow claims. Again, let's not try to regurgitate Russian propaganda, ok? Anyway - "videos appeared to show one of the alleged Russian soldiers refusing to lay down his weapon and opening fire, before a larger flurry of gunfire erupted. (...) As he emerges, the apparently armed man appears to raise a rifle and open fire, with the muzzle of the gun emitting puffs of smoke. (...) He said the videos appeared to show "a staged capture" where Russian forces were not really surrendering. "In this case, the Russian military personnel cannot be considered prisoners of war, but are fighting and committing perfidy."
• Meduza - yeah there's that "suspects Makiivka captives of feigning surrender" in there, right? Here's text "The investigators are considering the possibility that the Russian soldiers had opened fire while feigning surrender. If true, this would constitute a war crime under the international humanitarian law. " Then the source goes on to explain what is perfidy under international law.

So. Three of YOUR sources explicitly reference this as a potential war crime by the Russians (perfidy, fake surrender). The other ones just describe what happens, INCLUDING describing the fact that a Russian soldier started shooting at Ukrainians while others were surrendering (or pretending to surrender).

But you somehow insist on the section heading capturing ONLY the Russian bullshit disinformation version, contrary to the VERY SOURCES you yourself are providing.

Nope. Not how this works. Volunteer Marek 00:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

We report the Ukrainian version in the text of the section. The title should abide by WP:CRITERIA. "False surrender" is an hypothesis - no reliable source reports it as a fact. "Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering", however, is a fact, not an hypothesis, and it's very close to the way all RS summarised the incident. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"We report the Ukrainian version in the text of the section." Great! Then why do we (well, you) report only the (false disinformation) Russian version in the title of the section? See where the problem is? If you reflect upon what you just said perhaps you'll start to understand why this is biased af.

And no "shot after surrendering" is not a "fact". It's as much a hypothesis as anything else, since the very "fact" that they actually "surrender" rather than fake surrendered is what is in dispute. Volunteer Marek 01:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I am having a hard time coming up with an title for this that is brief, makes sense to the reader, and is WP:NPOV. My best attempt, which I think is bad, is "Disputed surrender video." It is at least brief and WP:NPOV, but is not informative. Anyone have better ideas? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's clear as day from the video that a Russian soldier opened up fire on Ukrainians while others were surrendering. Really the only question is whether the other ones were in on the plan or was this guy some fanatic idiot that got them all killed by his own stupidity, acting alone. Volunteer Marek 01:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, one opened fire while the others were surrendering. But the ones who got killed may not have been committing perfidy. That's part of the problem. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, it's not "clear as day". All sources use a cautious language ("apparently in the direction of the camera", "apparently armed man", "seems to turn his gun on what appears to be a Ukrainian unit", etc.). As you've watched the video yourself, you know well that you don't see shit. Secondly, the notion that the "other ones were in on the plan" is ridiculous. Brilliant plan! You give away your weapons and lie face down on the ground, what a plan! It's obvious that those soldiers were surrendering. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I see and what I don't see. One can very clearly see the Russian soldier come out of the building and start firing. "Cautious language" not withstanding all the sources say the same thing - Russian soldier opened fire on Ukrainians (though frankly some of the bending over backwards to qualify and weasel their reporting is indeed ridiculous in these sources. "apparently armed"??? Mothefucker (<-- refers to author of source, just in case someone tries to blame me for something I'm not doing -- VM), the guy was spraying bullets everywhere! Kind of hard to do that unless you're "apparently armed"!). As for whether the other ones were in on it or not, yes that's speculative which is why I'm not putting anything in the article about that. But just read some war accounts from WW2 (especially Pacific theater or last days of WW2 in europe) and you see this happening all the time, whether it's brilliant or stupid or desperate. Volunteer Marek 01:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You should eject yourself Marek (you are obviously biased). You say "Russian Soldier" (zero evidence he's a Russian Soldier (last man out and armed - he could have been sweeping/flushing out the Russian Soldiers as part of the surrender process) - I mean a key question that should be really easy to answer is: Is he identifiable among the dead?). You don't know who he's firing at and you are injecting a motive that exists solely in your imagination.

I would also add that in the conventional media sources that were reported above. There was so much variation in their description of the event that it becomes very quickly evident that the News Reporters are injecting narratives that are themselves indicative of bias or, of a prior predisposition to the way they imagine these events playing out. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:D528:71F1:8E67:600B (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we can use this name unless someone comes up with a better one. In general we should the language used by RS. There are many open questions (was it planned or an accident, were the rest of the soldiers shot during the fight or after that) so we should be careful. Alaexis_¿question? 09:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

We could replace "Videos purportedly showing ... after surrendering" with "disputed surrender", as Adoring nanny suggests, but we still need to convey the information about Russian soldiers shot in the Makiyivka area, otherwise readers won't understand what the section is about: is it about a dispute concerning a surrender? So what about the following: "Disputed surrender videos showing Russian soldiers shot in the Makiyivka area"? Does it make sense in English? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I think "Disputed surrender video" is better than the two other options that have been tried so far at least. The issue is the video just showed one Russian soldier shooting, so the title shouldn't imply that they all falsely surrendered (I don't think we know that as of right now). On the other hand, the title also shouldn't give weight only to the narrative that Ukrainian soliders may have shot surrendering Russians. So, I think "Disputed surrender video" is better Tristario (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Disputed surrender video is probably the least bad option given the objections above and at least it’s better than the highly POV versions Gitz6666 is trying to cram in there. Volunteer Marek 16:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I made a minor change to "Disputed Surrender of Russian solidiers in Makiivka". More informative on context without representing one sides viewpoint over the other's. Shadybabs (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, as @Gitz6666 and others noted, the altered title misses the point of executed Russian prisoners of war. It implies that the point of article is in the status of surrender, not in murdering more than 10 people (committing war crime, that is currently being investigated). I think it's best to return the original title, until the UN potentially states that the war crime wasn't committed. Blueginger2 (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• My reading of this discussion is that there is no consensus to include, at least in present state. Welcome to correct, but indeed, the videos do not show any actual execution, and according to Ukrainian sources that were Russian soldier(s) who attacked Ukrainian soldiers while simulating a "surrender". I have no idea if this is true, but at least it is unknown who committed a war crime here and if it was a war crime. Therefore, I would be strongly inclined to remove such materials, however, if I am misreading comments above and there is a consensus to include, that's fine. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  Would suggest that there is consensus to include. However have changed “Massacre” to “Disputed surrender” in the heading which I believe is a more neutral heading and in line with the consensus above. Ilenart626 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, while I understand you don't want to include and your reasons for it, I don't see how your reading of this discussion is that there is no consensus to include. You are literally the first editor to have expressed this point of view. Up until now all the other editors have been arguing about the best heading for the subsection. So how is yours a "reading" of the discussion rather than a creative reinvention of it? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. Based on editing history, there is probably a de facto consensus to include, although I would exclude. On a different matter, I excluded poorly sourced materials about Mamoulashvili. The poorly sourced is his "admission" of executing the prisoners. In fact, he seemed to deny it. His general personal views about the no quarter might be sourced OK (I have no judgement about it), but they belong to page about him if belong anywhere at all. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes In regards to this edit, there was an rfc on the inclusion of this topic in this page. Perhaps there are questions of weight or how this content should be included, but there is a consensus to include this content on the page Tristario (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The RfC did not conclude that there should be an entire section on this. Volunteer Marek 02:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings whether this gets an entire section or not, but I think the rfc indicates that this should be covered (in some manner) Tristario (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

According to the RfC, Q: Should we cover these topics in this article, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or in the newly-formed Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? A: No consensus. So yes, this is covered, but on another page where it belongs. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The rfc says "Q: Should the article deal with placement of military objectives near civilian objects? A: Yes, there is consensus that the article should cover this." Perhaps the main page to cover it is the other aticle, but the rfc seems unambiguous that there was a consensus to at least cover this topic in this article Tristario (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that according to the RfC (see quotation above) the subject should be covered either on this or on another page (it says there is no consensus which page). It does not say "both pages". Since it is about attacks on civilians, I think it should be covered on page Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be clarified with the closer of the rfc. That's not how I read it though Tristario (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, one can ask, but I think the closing was clear [5]. Note that the closing does not define what exactly should be included, and if kept on this page, I would certainly suggested some changes. But I think this clearly belongs to another page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

War crimes … including rape

The opening text says: During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian authorities and armed forces committed multiple war crimes in the form of … … rape of women and children.

The source is a NY Times report of a UN investigating commission which details multiple acts of violence and accounts of some - barbaric - rapes, but not only does the UN report not speak of the rapes as 'war crimes', it explicitly reports that the UN spokesman told the council, "the commission was documenting the actions of individual soldiers and had not found any general pattern of sexual violence as a war strategy" - deliberate strategy, or at least wilful blindness, is the usual definition of sexual violence as a war crime, rather than crime committed by individuals during war.

I did a quick search of how other sources covered the same UN report. All those I looked at listed the same main findings, but most did not cover the sexual violence elements and none described the rapes as 'war crimes'. At the very least we are using the wrong source, as while there seem to be very little doubt that these rape(s) have occurred, the source explicitly contradicts that rape has been used a war strategy. Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sexual violence doesn't need to be systematic or a war strategy to be a war crime (this is something Human Rights Watch notes here for instance). Sources have called rape in this invasion a war crime, I'll add one that's a bit more clear about it Tristario (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Mmmm The HRW seems ambiguous as to where the threshold is, when an individual crime becomes a war crime. Regardless, there has AFAIK never been a case (certainly prosecuted?) in which complicity/wilful blindness on the part of the govt/military waging the war has not been strongly indicated. In WP terms, some, fairly neutral, authority saying that this war crime had occurred would seem to be a minimum. Pincrete (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This UN report says The Commission investigated cases of rape committed by some soldiers of the Russian armed forces during the period under review in localities that came under their control, which are war crimes Tristario (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Are you talking about the crimes committed by the Russian Federation?Maybe you talked about the war crimes committed by Ukraine. Theklin (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian Prisioner of War shot, video link, march of 2023

See Execution of Tymofiy Shadura

https://t.me/war_diary_ua/271 Remirus2 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I can provide this video as a file, if it helps. Remirus2 (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Remirus2:, the article (Execution of Tymofiy Shadura) was created. Crimes should be documented, memory kept, justice served. Yug (talk) 🐲 16:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)