There was more than one incident reported in the article, and more than one soldier spoke to the reporters and provided proof. I don’t think it’s widespread, but pretending it doesn’t happen instead of facing it and creating policies and procedures to handle it gives legitimacy to the enemies’ claims.
No, they never provided proof. They provided ‘text conversations’ and video of DBs. There’s a reason the accusations are extremely limited to a couple specific individuals almost a year ago with dubious ‘evidence’, and not widespread proven allegations to the point the ICC would get involved. Ukraine already has policies and procedures in place because it is absolutely in their best interest to support the safety of surrendering to encourage enemy forces to do so. Suggesting they don’t is Russian propaganda.
Posting an article with sources and saying that this sort of thing is happening is not Russian propaganda. I and my family stand with Ukraine, your straw man argument is ridiculous and inflammatory.
These things happen in war, every day. Refusing to look at them, picking and choosing your facts to suit your opinions, and accusing others of being Russian propagandists is not a good look.
I appreciate that we all want peace and victory in Ukraine, and that any voice pointing out their flaws draws immediate downvotes.
Happened, not happening. Almost a year ago. In a foreign volunteer group. With poor evidence and zero investigation into whether the inquiry was started or who was involved with the cover-up. I didn’t say it doesn’t happen. I said the support for this accusation is extremely limited otherwise the article would have been written more strongly than ‘we think he’s believable’. More importantly, I’m making it clear there absolutely are rules and consequences long ago put in place to prevent it so even if it did occur this is a failure of individuals not reporting the crime or handling the reports of it improperly rather than a systemic one.
Being almost a year old this should have been written far more concretely than it was. Ie: ‘These individuals witnessed a warcrime and provided the following proof to this Ukrainian officer overseeing their operations. We questioned the officer, or their superiors, and they either refused comment or provided an explanation which follows…’. You should be asking yourself why journalists didn’t investigate far deeper than this surface level trite.
There was more than one incident reported in the article, and more than one soldier spoke to the reporters and provided proof. I don’t think it’s widespread, but pretending it doesn’t happen instead of facing it and creating policies and procedures to handle it gives legitimacy to the enemies’ claims.
No, they never provided proof. They provided ‘text conversations’ and video of DBs. There’s a reason the accusations are extremely limited to a couple specific individuals almost a year ago with dubious ‘evidence’, and not widespread proven allegations to the point the ICC would get involved. Ukraine already has policies and procedures in place because it is absolutely in their best interest to support the safety of surrendering to encourage enemy forces to do so. Suggesting they don’t is Russian propaganda.
Posting an article with sources and saying that this sort of thing is happening is not Russian propaganda. I and my family stand with Ukraine, your straw man argument is ridiculous and inflammatory.
These things happen in war, every day. Refusing to look at them, picking and choosing your facts to suit your opinions, and accusing others of being Russian propagandists is not a good look.
I appreciate that we all want peace and victory in Ukraine, and that any voice pointing out their flaws draws immediate downvotes.
Have a good day.
Happened, not happening. Almost a year ago. In a foreign volunteer group. With poor evidence and zero investigation into whether the inquiry was started or who was involved with the cover-up. I didn’t say it doesn’t happen. I said the support for this accusation is extremely limited otherwise the article would have been written more strongly than ‘we think he’s believable’. More importantly, I’m making it clear there absolutely are rules and consequences long ago put in place to prevent it so even if it did occur this is a failure of individuals not reporting the crime or handling the reports of it improperly rather than a systemic one.
Being almost a year old this should have been written far more concretely than it was. Ie: ‘These individuals witnessed a warcrime and provided the following proof to this Ukrainian officer overseeing their operations. We questioned the officer, or their superiors, and they either refused comment or provided an explanation which follows…’. You should be asking yourself why journalists didn’t investigate far deeper than this surface level trite.