• MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The Wikipedia article is a summary of many cited sources. There’s academic ones like The Journal of Genocidal Research. There’s a UN report from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. There’s news reports from Reuters and the BBC. There’s a report from the International Court. Though I’m sure you checked the sources before dismissing the article out of hand.

    No one is saying that there was zero conflict in Donbas leading up to the invasion. But to label it as “ethnic cleansing” without even acknowledging that this claim is widely disputed internationally is at best irresponsible and at worst deceptive

      • MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Buddy, what he said was reprehensible and I am not trying to defend his actions or statements. But does it meet the standard of “ethnic cleansing?” The International Court and most of the world says no.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Trying to eradicate culture, use of language, and subjugate a population certainly does meet the intent. The fact that they weren’t able to do it the way Israel is doing in Palestine is entirely due to the fact that LPR and DPR manage to mount effective resistance.

          • MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            You’re free to form a different opinion. But when yours is different than the majority of the world’s and the International Court, but won’t even admit that yours might be the hot take, it’s not a good look