Russian Rhetoric & The Tainting Of Ethical Journalism
A Response To Ridiculous Claims And Talking Points
For some time now I have been researching the actions and statements made by many countries throughout the world regarding what is ongoing in Ukraine and looking at their rhetoric. Increasingly, I have come across individuals with hardline viewpoints regarding the conflict, maintain a stark resistance to the support of the ongoing war, the Ukrainian government, or US and Western foreign policy. I found it right to address these statements, organizations, and rhetoric.
Russia has a wide range of justifications for a “special military operation” (war) in Ukraine. These range from NATO expansionism, to Nazis, to genocide of Russian speaking people, along with many more. Some are outlandish, some are mundane. However, regardless of the justification, President Putin of the Russian Federation gave the order for Russian forces to invade the neighboring country of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022 after months of denying a military build-up or premeditated invasion plan. In early November of 2021, the United States made public that the Russian Federation was building up its military forces along the border of Ukraine for a potential invasion of the country. The Russian Federation stated that these were just “military exercises” and to deter threats along its border, preventing an expansion to the 8-year-long war which had raged in the Donbas between Ukrainian forces and Russian-back separatist forces. Diplomacy was attempted by every major world leader, with US President Joe Biden having personal phone calls with President Putin of Russia, which saw no de-escalation as of VOA report on 20 December 2021. These attempts to diplomacy continued, with Russian officials becoming increasingly hostile, and diplomatic negotiations breaking down. Thought Western powers continued to attempt diplomatic approaches.
In February, the Russian Federation entered into Belarus with massive numbers of troops, posturing them on the Northern portion of the Belarus-Ukrainian border. While the world continued to watch and state that an invasion of Ukraine by Russia was imminent, the Russian Federation stated that their forces were simply conducting “joint training exercises” with their Belarussian counterparts (with whom, Russia is in a Union with). It was on February 24th, during the UN Security Council meeting in which western powers continued the diplomatic approach in which Putin gave the order to begin the invasion. The news was broken to the council by Ukrainian permanent representative to the UN Sergiy Kyslytsya.
The Russian Federation, through its own political dialogue and actions has shown, throughout history, it is an aggressive power with imperial ambitions. Chechnya, a breakaway republic of the former Soviet Union was brutally beaten into submission during two devastating wars (1991 - 2000) in which Russian forces put massive amounts of people into “filtration camps” and “filtration points”. Filtration camps were later discovered to have been used to subjugate individuals to systematic beatings, rape, torture, deprivation of food, water, sleep, and sanitation, along with the extra-judicial executions of individuals interred in these camps. These same camps would later be used in Ukraine against Ukrainian civilians. In 2008, Russia accused Georgia of committing acts of genocide against Russian-speaking people in South Ossetia and Abkhazia after supporting a separatist movement in the region, prompting Russia to invade Georgia and occupy these regions with later attempts to annex them. In 2014, Ukrainians ousted their pro-Russian government after rampant corruption and misappropriations of funds led to civil unrest. Pro-government police began to use live ammunition against protesters claiming there were “snipers” amongst them. A small band of Russian-speaking separatists in the Donbas region then decided to create “independent republics” sparking a civil war. Russia took advantage of this situation, supplying arms to the separatist forces (prolonging the conflict), then deploying Russian troops (without identifying insignia) into Crimea. Russia held a psuedo-referendum in which Russia claimed that 97% of voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation. The war in Donbas would continue until the subsequent invasion in 2022. In 2015, the Russian forces “Operational Command South” deployed troops into the country of Syria, gripped in the midst of a civil war in which seemed that Baathist party leader Assad would be imminently ousted, similar to that of Qaddafi in Libya and other governments which fell to the Arab Spring movement. Russian forces supported Assad, and provided direct assistance to his forces allowing him to regain control of the situation South of the Euphrates river. Assad and Russia then used their artillery and air force to bomb Idlib, Aleppo, and many other major cities with indiscriminate attacks, including those using cluster munitions. Purposefully, there were pauses between salvos, allowing rescue workers to get out of cover to assist the wounded. The next salvo would then kill and injure first responders, leading to significantly higher casualty rates. The “White Helmets” a rescue organization were deemed a terror group by Assad and Russia, and subsequently were directly attacked. The political situation allowed for the rise of the Islamic State to take large swaths of Syria, including the lucrative Umar oil fields and Conoco gas fields. Russian forces facilitated the usage of chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian armed forces in locations such as Douma and Khan Shaykhuns. Despite video evidence from organizations such as RT of Russian forces using cluster munitions, and with the confirmation of the use of incendiary weapons and chemical weapons by a joint UN investigative team, Russia denies any civilian casualties as a result of their campaign, and any usage of prohibited conventional weapons.
Now with the history of the Russian Federation’s exploits up until the war in Ukraine out of the way giving us a clear picture of the nation we are all dealing with, let us take a look at some common statements and arguments for the Russian side, starting with those made by the Russian Federation.
Genocide of Russian Speaking Nationals
A common statement made by the Russian Federation is that the Ukrainians have been committing Genocide against the Russian-speaking nationals of Ukraine within the Donbas during their 8-year endeavor of fighting Russian-backed separatists. To begin, we start with the legal definition of the term genocide according to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1993, taken directly from the UN’s official website:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
While Ukraine has killed members of the separatist forces, and also documented incidents in which killed civilians, satellite imagery of the battlespace (particularly of those areas around the city of Donetsk) show that Ukrainian forces limited strikes to areas of military significance (such as the Donetsk Sergey Prokofiev International Airport). This resulted, using Soviet-era weapon systems such as the BM-21 “Grad” to cause collateral damage to surrounding neighborhoods.
This tells us that Ukraine was minimizing its military attacks to on and around well-defined military objectives, incurring tragic losses of civilian life. While neighboring civilian structures adjacent to the airport do see significant amounts of destruction, moving further into the city of Donetsk destructions becomes impossible to spot as no major or sustained attacks occurred there, despite being well in range of Ukrainian artillery systems at the time. This shows a lack of willingness to attack a population, based on any language, nationality, or otherwise, debunking a basis for a crime of genocide.
Biological Laboratories
If you have ever had your blood drawn, received a flu vaccine, or had a test done at your local hospital, you’ve dealt with a biological laboratory. Russia has stated numerous times that the US had funded biological laboratories in Ukraine with the intent of creating biological weapons to further the genocidal cause of Ukrainian forces (already debunked). In fact, for the past 20 years, the US has partnered with Ukraine to provide medical infrastructure to study and prevent the spread of infectious diseases such as Ebola throughout Ukraine. These were reported as required by the non-proliferation treaties and 46 such sites were acknowledged to exist in Ukraine in a fact sheet released in June 2022.
Nazi’s In Ukraine
The most common statement is that Ukraine is lead by a “nazi” government. For those who do not know, this term comes from a German acronym for the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers' Party during World War II. Neo-Nazis, mostly comprising of white supremacists still exist today (including groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) which have subscribed to Nazi ideologies and symbology. This, however, is impossible for Ukraine. Ukraine is led by President Zelensky, a Jewish man. It is physically impossible to be a Nazi and be Jewish based on the ideology of Nazism alone. Immediately debunking said rhetoric. Furthermore, Ukrainians cannot be members of the Nazi party, as they are not German.
As part of the disinformation campaign, Russia has continued to pursue different events of their failed war in Ukraine on social media and journalists. Namely, by removing all independent media throughout Russia, with only government-affiliated media such as RT, RIA, IZ, Russia 1, TASS, etc. to be permitted to remain broadcasting and reporting on the war. Furthermore, Russia banned the use of the term “war” by anyone within Russia, punishable by jail time for “discrediting the armed forces of the Russian Federation”. In the same light, protesting the “special military operation”, mobilization, or government can lead to jail time or as some reports have shown, forced conscription into the war itself. Ensuring that dissenting opinions will not return alive from the frontlines of Ukraine. This harsh censorship limits independent media sources from Russia and what can be said by them to give an accurate picture as to the Russian side, viewpoints, and hinders investigative journalists’ abilities to really get to the bottom of the war from Russia’s perspective. This rhetoric from the Russians, along with personal extremists’ ideologies from conspiracy theorists and isolationists within Western nations leads to other independent journalists reiterating these Russian disinformation talking points and perpetuating such information online. Whether purposefully, or inadvertently, is hard to determine. Here are some examples of this from journalists and analysts on social media:
“Lack of Diplomacy” - Post by Richard Medhurst
Richard Medhurst, an independent journalist spoke on the policy decisions of controversial US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) for supporting policy which continues to supply Ukraine with US and NATO military aid. Attacking the representative by stating that she is a “fucking moron” and that “nuking the planet must be part of the Green New Deal”. Criticizing a lack of diplomacy, despite months of diplomatic talks failing leading up to the invasion, along with rejections by the Russian side for diplomatic talks during the course of the war. Furthermore, when negotiations and diplomatic talks temporarily took place with Ukraine, Russia used this lull in the fighting to reconcentrate its military forces to begin a renewed and brutal military campaign. “You’re fucking with Russia here, they have more nukes and better nukes than you.” Medhurst goes on to say in his Twitter video, referencing the nuclear threats made by the Russian Federation against western states. It can be agreed that nuclear wars should never be fought as they are impossible to win, and impossible not to further escalate. Russian forces utilizing nuclear weapons in Ukraine would certainly draw a military response in Ukraine and possibly against the Russian Federation. However, as seen by the war in Ukraine, Russian military strength was perceived to be much greater than reality. While nuclear threats are still serious and should be taken as such. Russian usage of strategic nuclear weapons remains extremely low, and the mentioning of such usage is to strike fear in the heart of westerns to compel them to draw down support for Ukraine. Diplomacy failed, and nuclear weapons as a threat have always existed, as has the threat of nuclear war, since we created such destructive systems at the end of World War II.
“Why Is It In US National Interest?” - Post by David Sacks In Reply To RadioFreeTom
David Sacks, an entrepreneur, in response to RadioFreeTom, asked “Why don’t you try to articulate the vital national interest that compels the United States into a nuclear showdown instead of pretending like the common folk are too dumb to understand the risk that you insist be taken on their behalf?”
It is in the interest of the United States, and American citizens, that the US continues to support Ukraine. In fact, had the US had deployed significant forces into Ukraine prior to the invasion by Russia - the war may not have ever happened. Following the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, there was condemnation on the international stage. With the 2014 invasion and annexation of Crimea, there were more words of condemnation and light sanctions against Russia. On 7 February 2018, Russian mercenaries of the Wagner Group (founded in 2014 by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a member of Putin’s inner circle) attacked US-coalition forces located at the Conoco gas fields near Khasham, Syria. After denial of any Russian forces within the region, the US bombed the military formations, leaving roughly 300 dead and wounded Russian mercenaries and an additional 100 dead and wounded pro-Assad regime forces. The clear deconfliction line between US and Russian backed forces was the Middle Euphrates River Valley (MERV). With military action, there would be no more major direct attacks against US forces anywhere in the world by Russian-backed groups.
International condemnation, appeasement, isolationism, and economic sanctions have never stopped nations with imperial ambitions. In World War II, Hitler was promised the Sudetenland by Neville Chamberland, without the consultation of Czechoslovakia. Hitler would go on to invade the rest of the country and occupy it. It was seen again with Belgium, which drew the UK and France into the war with Nazi Germany. Finally, with the idea of demoralizing the US in a single strike, the Japanese Empire attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor - thinking the isolationist nation would immediately capitulate, not wishing to become involved in the war. In World War I, this same isolationist policy was undertaken until Germany had begun unrestricted submarine warfare, attempted to get Mexico to invade the US, and sunk the Lusitania, killing a large number of American civilians. Isolationist policies by the United States and Western powers throughout modern history have only considerably made the situation worse and more protracted. Should the US had gone to war sooner during WWI, it is likely that the Soviet Union would have ever been created, and the war likely would have ended at least a full year sooner. Furthermore, it is in the US’ best interest because without a military defeat, it is unlikely that Russia will stop at Ukraine, and other nations are watching this event and other nation’s reactions too. Such as China in the Pacific, and Iran in the Middle East. Both expansionist powers, both with anti-western ideologies and whom seem willing to do ill-will against their neighbors and US forces within their regions.
“Proxy War & US Oligarchy” - By Max Blumenthal
According to Max Blumenthal, a journalist and editor for The Grayzone News, the US is continuing a “proxy war” for the economic interests of “US oligarchs” also known as the “elite”. Firstly, we need to define the term “proxy war” properly:
“Proxy War - A war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers, and may have help or support from these.” - Cambridge Dictionary
The war in Ukraine cannot be considered a “proxy war” despite such common terminology. The reason being, is that the major parties involved are fighting for their own interests and not the interests of others. Russia, a major power, invaded the country of Ukraine dedicating its forces, therefore representing itself. Until the invasion, their support of the separatists in the Donbas does consider it participating in a proxy war because the separatists were fighting in the interests and were supported by the Russian Federation. Ukraine, another formidable power, though smaller, within Europe is fighting the war for its own interests of self-preservation. Requesting and receiving supplies and equipment from other powers with similar ideologies and using them in a defensive military role, without the intention of expanding a sphere of influence or other nation’s interests.
Secondly, we come to US oligarchies. Once again, definitions allow us to bring understanding as to the statement being made:
“oligarchy - noun
government by the few
a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes
also:
a group exercising such controlan organization under oligarchic control” - Merriam-Webster Dictionary
“oligarch - noun
a member or supporter of an oligarchy
in Russia and other countries that succeeded the Soviet Union: one of a class of individuals who through private acquisition of state assets amassed great wealth that is stored especially in foreign accounts and properties and who typically maintain close links to the highest government circles.” - Merriam-Webster Dictionary
The United States of America is a democratic republic, meaning that Americans vote at a more local level for individuals to create policy and represent them on a national level. While over their careers, these politicians do generally obtain large amounts of wealth, these is not always required to be the case, and often these individuals do not own any private business ventures that would lead to them making profitable decisions for themselves. While not banned, it does significantly decrease likelihood of re-election. Furthermore, corruption exists in every government in the world. Notoriously, the Russian Federation (as you can see has its own definition) maintains many oligarchs, usually with government backing. However, quality of life in the US suggests that corruption is relatively low and that American policy interests are more sought after as opposed to personal interests of those in power, who could easily lose said power if not re-elected.
“US Occupation Of Syria” - By Peter Cronau
Peter Cronau, an independent investigative journalist, spoke about how US forces in Syria thanks USAID and UNICEF for humanitarian aid while being an “occupational force”.
”occupational force - noun - control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory” - Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Between US “occupation” and “stealing Syrian oil”, there are plenty of things which Russia and Russian-supporters have stated that the US is doing with self-interest in mind that the US government just isn’t letting you know. As someone who has served in Syria, I can attest that these ideas are completely and utterly false. The US presence in Syria cannot be called a military occupation, as the US establishes no governments or laws, but they are instead established by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Namely, the native Kurdish people. These are laws we have to follow as US service members, clear down to not flushing used toilet paper (still haunts me to this day). While the Umar oil fields, from which we are “stealing from” are actually destroyed. The Islamic State used this area to sell oil to the black market, which the US then subsequently bombed into the stone age. The security situation does not allow for major repairs and reconstruction and as such there is little-to-no economic output via oil or gas in this region. The mission in Syria, and Iraq, is as advertised by the US and coalition partners. It’s the fight against the Islamic State. There were no briefings about protecting oil convoys, nor were there briefings on operations against Assad forces. Attacks against US forces resulted in retaliatory strikes. While a disappointment to conspiracy theorists, it is unfortunately the truth. We’re fighting terrorists… just like we always said we were. For so few personnel having served in Syria, it’s wonder “investigative journalists” never seem to try to interview them.
“Terror Bombing” - Post By Michael Tracey
Independent journalist Michael Tracey states that Ukraine has conducted a “US-backed terror bombing” of the Kerch Bridge, an attack which resulted in significant damage to the bridge and killed 3 civilians. While strong rhetoric, Ukraine publicly denied conducting the bombing, however this in unable to be confirmed. Which is confirmable, is that the Kerch bridge in Crimea is a military target according to international law. Rule #8 of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) kept record via the ICRC website defines a valid military objective as being:
“Rule 8. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose partial or total destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” - IHL, Volume II, Chapter 2, Section B.
The Kerch Bridge, which crosses between mainland Russia and Crimea, was built post-2014 to solidify their occupational holdings in Crimea. This bridge is heavily used by Russian military forces to bring troops, equipment, and supplies from Russia, into Crimea, and then further toward the frontlines in areas such as the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblast of Ukraine. This is the only route which they can take to Crimea, therefore it is a vital main supply route and a vulnerable chokepoint for the Russians. Destroying this objective means that all equipment must travel through the Donbas, and across occupied territory to reach their intended destinations. Lengthening the supply route, and putting Russian military forces within range of HIMARS and M270 MARS II systems within Ukraine.
As for the type of attacks permitted, the method of destroying a valid military objective is not specified in the laws of war, as long as the attack minimizes collateral damage and civilian casualties.
“The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” - 1949 Geneva Conventions, Part III, Section I, Article 28
Conclusion & Thoughts On Ethical Journalism
War is a terrible, irreprehensible crime within itself. It is the worst of humanity and a waste of our potential. Nobody, especially those who have seen war, want one to continue. If diplomacy were a real and effective option at this point in the conflict in Ukraine, then it would be continued. However, the results of months of attempts to avoid and end the war diplomatically, and the history of Russian diplomacy leads us to only one pathway: continuation of the conflict and suffering, prolonging the endeavor. This is evident in the “doubling down” in Ukraine by the Russian Federation. By definition, with visual evidence widely available on the internet, Russia has fit the definition for committing acts of genocide against Ukraine based on nationality. This definition was purposefully written in 1949 to be understandable by the average person, so that way it could not be misconstrued by any power. Strong actions, and strong support of Ukraine is required to stop genocide, and to stop, not prolong, suffering of a people. The threat of nuclear weapons is, terrifying. However, to willfully and knowingly allow genocide to occur, is morally irreprehensible. Stopping genocide is worth these risks, to include nuclear devastation; not because of some political interests or expansionist policy, but because of the basic moral compass that guides us as human being. That same compass which for even a child allows them to determine between what is right and wrong.
Each of these authors, many being journalists, have also made personal attacks against fellow journalists and subjects. It is important that as a journalist, amateur or professional, that you present the facts as they are, not as you wish to see them. Evidence is crucial in your claims. Likewise, it is important to remember the pillars of ethical journalism:
“Seek Truth and Report It
Minimize Harm
Act Independently
Be Accountable and Transparent” - Code of Ethics, Society of Professional Journalists