-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Amnesty International regrets distress caused by it's report on Ukrainian Military's endangering of civilians, but stands by its findings
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- News
I've been an amnesty member for over 10 years and have donated thousands of dollars in that time. They've made misteps, but they've also done a lot of good. This is just one step too far for me, I'm cancelling my regular donation.
There's also the fact that many of the fighters were previously civilians til Russia invaded. So, it becomes where are they getting funding to build the hypothetical new bases to house these people. Who is building? Who is doing so while another country is bombing them?
I find quite headscratching, and dangerous, to start dismissing human rights reports when they don't fit a particular viewpoint. I can understand criticizing lack of "context" and whatnot, but going full into "AI is now shit, I won't support them anymore" when they've been internationally consistent in reporting against everyone regardless of political ideology and spectrum seems kinda radical and missing the the forest for the trees.
We should all be veeeeery careful when threading these waters. Specially on an historical time when tyrants, who are very quick to dismiss these organizations as ideological when it doesn't suit them, are pretty much up there as runner ups to offices all over the world.
We should all be veeeeery careful when threading these waters. Specially on an historical time when tyrants, who are very quick to dismiss these organizations as ideological when it doesn't suit them, are pretty much up there as runner ups to offices all over the world.
the writer of the report believes Finland should be annexed by Russia. There's also an Amnesty International leader in Finland spreading Russian misinformation from a known propaganda outfit known as the gray zone. These are leaders of the org. That reflects pretty heavily unless those elements get removed.
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/LittleDsrtFlowr/status/1556070976214863872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1556070976214863872%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
My point still stands. There are always problematic elements in organizations that heavily deal with subjects such as this. Criticism should be pointed at them, or the report, rather than the organization as a whole, specially when they are specific chapters and this can become a trend that hurts other places in the world.
AI authored the report, released it and initially double downed on it. Even their "regret" is mealy mouthed.
The report is not too different than pooh poohing a victim for pushing an assailant to get away. Russia was hitting civilian centers regardless. Russia was committing war crimes en masse regardless. What benefit is there in pointing out technicalities regarding Ukraine when none of this even exists if not for Russia's invasion?
OP
OP
Amnesty Internwtional believes it? I don't think that's true. AI doesn't involve itself in geopolitical disputes. Their members are free to do whatever they want, but that still does not dispute what AI reported as facts from the ground: which is endangerment of civilians by Ukrainian military. Other groups are also reporting the same. These calls for AI to be shunned or canceled are not helpful.
What did they expect, a life-or-death defense that's executed in absolute surgical precision - in urban spaces?
Let's be clear the implications of the report and what they're saying. They're saying to leave civilian centers unprotected from fire they'll already receive and also that the military including the large amounts of civilian volunteers that now power the fighting force be operating in open areas (any base in a city is near civilians)
*Hamlet's uncle kills the king and assumes the throne*
"There are always problematic elements in organizations that heavily deal with subjects such as this. Criticism should be pointed at them, rather than the organization as a whole"
Well, we can discuss those technicalities while still not dragging the whole AI into the ground. And that's the thing, this is not about "benefit", it's about reporting. There are several steps people can take, and they aren't mutually contrarian. You can take the report and consider that perhaps Ukraine could do better in protecting their civilians, while still knowing and acknowledging that it's Russia's fault. You can also criticize the report and consider it wrong while keeping a nuance towards AI as a whole. You can also take the report into account while denouncing the chapter's problematic members. We weren't talking about biases or problematic memebers when AI was talking about massive HR violations by Russian troops.
None of this has to be done with other "benefits" in mind than suggesting ways of protecting human lives and human rights.
There were too many missteps made. The report was absurd to be put outings the first place and was immediately shared by official Russian sources to justify their killing of civilians. AI is dead to me and barring massive apologies and a shakeup at the top it will remain so. They did good work in the past but this is a bridge too far.
I think that's a very simplistic take. It's very different from 'Pooh poohing a victim for pushing an assailant to get away'. Because governments and militaries, even when under attack from overwhelming, illegal aggression, still have more agency in exactly how they act than the civilians relying on them do.
The benefit of pointing out technicalities is in best practice, is in applying human rights legislation and war crimes investigation even-handedly, is in doing so so that, in years to come, the truth is preserved through neutral parties that were able to move and investigate and criticise freely. The same legislation recognises there's a balance between military necessity and human rights in warfare, this same criticism is also not legally binding, more of a warning of what was claimed to be observed (although I've seen at least one critic say they haven't stood up all of it).
Yes, their cities are under attack, yes, the weight and responsibility for the entire situation rests on Putin and Russian aggression, yes, they've targeted hospitals. But that doesn't mean the defenders, when Ukraine at this point is a relatively large army backed by dozens of westerns countries, should be immune to criticism of anything straying from best practice regarding the human rights legislation they signed up to.
Casting it as a simplistic 'helpless victim vs overwhelming aggression' ignores that there are three elements here, and agencies like Amnesty aim to make sure the Ukraine civilians aren't treated as acceptable losses by the Ukraine armed forces and government protecting them even as they, understandably, are in the fight of their lives vs Russia. I realise it seems and feels distasteful to criticise in the moment, but for future posterity, investigations like this remain important. It's little more than a footnote right now given the news cycle will move on quickly, but it's important for the historical record.
That Russia holds it up as a PR win is meaningless- who gives a shit what Russia says. This isn't about PR wins. The minute human rights and war crimes investigations become about a tit-for-tat PR win today rather than neutral records for posterity, they are meaningless. Nothing AI is talking about in terms of best practice for civil defence is a fraction of the scale of what Russia has done in terms of war crimes.
It's unfortunate that they have to fight from residential areas and use civil infrastructure but what are they supposed to do? It's 2022, not 1822 -- Russia is not going to meet them out in some field somewhere. It's victim blaming horseshit. Russia can go home and end the civilian deaths at any time. Ukraine cannot
Tell me what you think Ukrainian military can or should do to protect the country such that Russia won't kill its civilians. Without any viable suggestions I think it's extremely misguided to place any blame on the invaded. If Russia was seeking to avoid war crimes there might be an argument but they don't care and have hit civilians over and over even when no military is around. You can say my take is simplistic but you're not offering what Ukrainian forces are meant to do. Should they mass in the forest so Rusdia can hit them and then allow Russia to pull a Bucha on the whole country?
If the organization allows those members to remain the organization, then we should criticize the organization as a whole.
OP
OP
It's not fair to ask randos on gaming forum how to conduct a war ethically. We're not military strategists. That's the job of generals and commanders. What we can side with however is that civilian lives matter and should not be intentionally endangered. They have the backing of the brightest strategists from around the world, with another $1 billion in taxpayer funds from America. Surely they can find ways to fight the aggressors without relying on these tactics. It's not like Gaza, a walled-in concentration camp with the highest density of population per sq mile.
Ultimately I don't have a problem with the report - it's imperfect and there's definitely agendas in play, but Amnesty International has no actual hard power, and I'd rather they be too strict with their interpretation of human rights law than too loose.
There IS a point where soldiers, even fighting a defensive war, cross a line of acceptability and should be condemned for it. Personally, stuff like parking military operatives near hospitals and everything - that doesn't bother me, Russia has shown it has no problem indiscriminately targeting civilians regardless. But I'd rather it be documented than otherwise, because the lines between "protecting your civilian population" and "using your civilian population as human shields for asymmetrical warfare" can be hard to track.
And even if their options are "bad" and "worse," i.e. "commit war crimes" and "accept total annihilation," the role of these organizations is to document the bad. Again, it's not like this is a governmental arm with the power to directly affect the conflict. The US isn't going to suspend funds to Ukraine because of an Amnesty International report. At most you can say it moves the needle of public opinion, but I see zero evidence that the average citizen gives a shit about international law.
I dislike the trend toward viewing any conflict, even one as straightforward as the invasion of Ukraine, in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys," because it stymies objectivity. A nation/military isn't exempt from oversight just because they're active defensively.
There IS a point where soldiers, even fighting a defensive war, cross a line of acceptability and should be condemned for it. Personally, stuff like parking military operatives near hospitals and everything - that doesn't bother me, Russia has shown it has no problem indiscriminately targeting civilians regardless. But I'd rather it be documented than otherwise, because the lines between "protecting your civilian population" and "using your civilian population as human shields for asymmetrical warfare" can be hard to track.
And even if their options are "bad" and "worse," i.e. "commit war crimes" and "accept total annihilation," the role of these organizations is to document the bad. Again, it's not like this is a governmental arm with the power to directly affect the conflict. The US isn't going to suspend funds to Ukraine because of an Amnesty International report. At most you can say it moves the needle of public opinion, but I see zero evidence that the average citizen gives a shit about international law.
I dislike the trend toward viewing any conflict, even one as straightforward as the invasion of Ukraine, in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys," because it stymies objectivity. A nation/military isn't exempt from oversight just because they're active defensively.
Well yeah, perhaps I should be more specific about criticism being fine but dismissing the whole organization as being the dangerous path. Specially when they've been covering Russia's actions pretty consistently. In that sense, burning it all down because of one report on Ukraine is rather irrational.
These points are painting a hell of a picture.
I'm neither a military strategist nor a human rights investigator, and the lack of the combination of both in the same people is exactly why varied legislation around it admits that there's a balance and nuance between the two, that best practice is not always possible. That doesn't mean my opinion that a record and criticism of exactly how a defence was observed to be conducted is useful for posterity somehow means I think the Ukraine armed forces should go stand out in the open, nor is that something Amnesty suggests. This war is going to go on for a long time. A reminder to try and limit civilian casualties in accordance with HR legislation, even in the face of Russia's actions that have left them as a near-global pariah, isn't a bad thing when Ukraine is quite rightly recording as many infractions as possible by Russia for future prosecution. It's just a headline yesterday and today, viewed as PR win for cynics and Russian trolls, but in years to come, it's also about making sure that, when people look back on this in the future, they can see that only one side blatantly didn't give a shit when reminded by a neutral organisation about its commitments. Again, I realise it's distasteful. But even allowing freedom of movement for the investigators that then lets them talk about this stuff (and again, be criticised for it in turn by other expertise) is a good thing. No nation is perfect, Ukraine's positions are understandable, if they say 'yeah we're doing what we can with the military situation we've got' I don't think anyone is going to push it further. It doesn't mean all criticism of the defenders by neutral organisations should be silenced in warfare. It sets a bad precedent.
The report is giving Russia cover to continue bombing schools and hospitals as legitimate targets, both of which they have done from the beginning. Now they can point to the article and stir dissent in countries helping and supplying Ukraine.
An article like this will cost many innocent lifes. The article itself is far more dangerous and headscratching than any user dismissing both the article and AI in general.
Well bury it in a report on the conflict for the record. Don't make a headline out of it, plaster it on Twitter. The level of reporting is not proportionate to the offenses committed by both sides and if you read the report and it's findings they are tenuous at best.
Slightly ott but I really don't see how a life of a civilian lost should be any more worthy of human rights than the life of a soldier of a country that was forced to defend itself from invasion and genocide. You could say that the Ukrainian soldiers had a choice, but did they? They never asked for this and the vast majority were civilians just a few months ago. Many were conscripted after all. Secondly one could argue that many of the civilians that stayed behind had a choice; there are no encirclements at the moment and the government has been begging people near the front to leave and trying to assist in relocation but the truth of the matter is that some civilians actively choose not to leave. So you have soldiers that actively have no choice in the matter, who were themselves civilians a few weeks ago being asked to further jeopardize their right to life to possibly( but not really )save people who are actively refusing to leave despite consistently being given the opportunity. Lets not pretend the human rights calculus is as straight forward as the law makes it seem.
Y'know I was easily against this report, and still question the usefulness of it in the "now", but your post is a well-written view of why this sort of documentation is still useful in at least a historical sense.
Much better worded than what I can say.
This isn't a videogame or entertainment company executive saying some shit and one deciding not to buy or watch stuff from them. Starting to dismiss the whole organization is super dangerous.
Amnesty International has published multiple reports on Russia's human rights abuses and that hasn't stopped them from doing it. Not publishing this report wouldn't stop Russia from bombing them. Countries that help and support Ukraine won't stop because of Amnesty saying this. Countries still support Israel for example, despite all the reporting done on their human rights abuses.
But engaging in disregarding AI as ideological or "picking sides" over one (one, just one) report on Ukraine can spread like wildfire in public opinion.
Fair point on plastering it over twitter, I agree with you. There's being open and sharing it with relevant bodies for study, and then there's broadcasting it so that the opposing side can take a hot take from it and spin it as quick as possible for the social media war, which is what's happened here.
Re. your second para- I deliberately didn't say soldiers, I said 'governments and militaries'. Of course individual soldiers and conscripts don't get to make wider impactful choices, no one wants to end up in the middle of it, but their high command do. That's who the report is aimed at, a general reminder not to make hospitals war zones. Which admittedly feels a bit pointless when Russia was deliberately targeting them anyway.
I don't know. Should Amnesty have been looking at Ukrainian defences to make sure the largest-scale urban warfare in Europe in decades was being conducted in accordance with HR legislation? Yes. Could the report have been handled a lot better to avoid it immediately being used as PR ammunition by Russia who are well over the event horizon on war crimes? Also yes.
Support for Ukraine by a country isn't determined by an on/off switch. But let's say when winter comes here in Germany and the gas situation gets bad, the public opinion on Ukraine will effect how everything moves forward.
The atrocities in Bucha or Mariopol committed by Russia will lead to more support from the population, but giving Russia an easy excuse like "well actually, Ukraines military was using their civilians as cover" whenever Russia butchers people, will have an opposing effect.
In reality, Ukraine is a small country that gets invaded by its big neighbor. For the UAF to stand a chance they can't engage the Russian army in open field battles. This plus they are defending the very civilians living in the cities. Plus using civilians as a shield wouldn't work against Russia anyways, as Russia is killing them with our without the UAF being nearby.
So, what does this specific report accomplish?
I'm all for reporting on mistreatment of pow or other human right violations, no matter what side. But this reports only accomplishment is giving Russia and pro Russian groups ammo for what they do. You can see in this very thread how people are using the report to bothside the war. And that's dangerous.
Right, exactly. The only way to placate them is to abandon the cities, prevent civilians from defending themselves (because they would become combatants, therefore drawing fire), and go sit in a field instead.
It's bonkers. Sometimes the correct move is to not dive into something you don't understand. Though in this case, they do understand since the person who authored the report is a fascist. The larger organization clearly sees no issue with this.
It's bonkers to me that anyone would support this. Ukraine is trying to protect itself against what is a borderline genocide. They've more or less pressed their entire male population into military service simply to try to survive. It's not like they're using suicide vests or chemical warfare. They're using what infrastructure they have left that's still standing to maintain a defensive position.
This report is not only morally reprehensible because the consequences of it existing will embolden Russia. It's also wrong.
Wouldn't mistreatment of pow report account to the same anti Ukraine PR campaign?
In that case it would be rightfully so to pressure them to stop. It's neither a team sport or rocket science
I can assure you it would be met with the same "but the context" comments in a lot of places. The point is that we can't dismiss human rights concerns over PR.
You can't cite a theoretical response to something that isn't happening as evidence for your position.
Some actions - like how you defend your citizens against an unprovoked aggressive, genocidal, fascist force - deserve context. In this case, the extremely relevant context is that Russia has proven repeatedly that they have no compunctions against indiscriminately attacking civilian centers to try to pressure the Ukrainian government to surrender, and thus core thesis of "human shields bad" doesn't hold up.
Other actions - like how you treat human beings who you have captured and deprived of civil liberties and thus are entirely dependent upon your actions - do not require context.
Making a mistake or having a bad actor in your org is one thing, but to ignore criticism and defend absolutely wrong conclusions, by people that seem to have an agenda, is deeply disappointing for an org that has done some great work over the years.
I think there's a difference between saying that the article has flaws and could be wrong because of it, and saying that they shouldn't report it because it hurts PR. Other users have worded in much better ways why the article itself isn't entirely wrong to be posted, and as such it's something up for discussion. Completely dismissing it or, worse, the whole international organization, because it hurts PR is not a position people should be taking in something as senstitive as Human Rights.
War is terrible for humans. Who would have thought? The aggressors here are Russia. That's the important thing to remember.
According to this report, they should march out into the fields and get bombed I guess.
This isn't about "PR." I'm not concerned about Ukraine's image in the public eye in the abstract. I'm concerned about ivory tower finger-waggy both-sidesisms giving Russia greater standing in the international community, potentially weakening sanctions and responses from other countries, and potentially contributing to a situation where a fascist genocidal dictator could ultimately become successful in his military advancement of a fascist ethnostate.
This is absolutely spot on. Human rights abuses are the same no matter who commits them.
Just because their office in Finland has problematic people doesn't mean that AI is suddenly agrees with those shitty opinions.
Then they should cut them loose or they're worthless as an organization and hopefully a better one takes their place.
I don't understand why people are discussing the report as if it's an abstract, inaccessible thing when it's not only readily available but it isn't even particularly lengthy making it a very accessible read; there's no need to provide an uninformed perspective here.
The report, broadly speaking, covers a few areas which are grouped under 'launching attacks from heavily populated areas,' the 'establishment of military bases in hospitals', and 'the establishment of military bases in schools'.
The report is very explicit that while there are demonstrated and reported examples of how this explicitly resulted in "putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated area [...] not every Russian attack documented by Amnesty International followed this pattern, however. In certain other locations in which Amnesty International concluded that Russia had committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv, the organization did not find evidence of Ukrainian forces located in the civilian areas unlawfully targeted by the Russian military."
Contrary to certain posters claiming the report states Ukranian soldiers should "march out into the fields and get bombed", it specifically highlights cases where "viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians – such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas" (wooded areas being one suggestion). The report does not state an expectation that military operations should "leave civilian centers unprotected from fire" or "abandon the cities" but it does state that "military who located themselves in civilian structures in residential areas [had not] asked or [had not] assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings – a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians".
It, similarly, contrary to the user who stated it "was made without consultation with the AI people on the ground in Ukraine", highlights instances documented by Amnesty researchers where "Amnesty International researchers witnessed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. In two towns, dozens of soldiers were resting, milling about, and eating meals in hospitals. In another town, soldiers were firing from near the hospital." where "using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law". The report does not outright condemn or necessitate a non-usage of schools, however it does draw attention to how "if they do so, they should warn civilians and, if necessary, help them evacuate."
It's concluding statement puts the entire report, again (after opening with similar context setting), in a very clear context "The Ukrainian military's practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks. All parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects and take all feasible precautions, including in choice of weapons, to minimize civilian harm. Indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes".
The actions it suggests are not to abandon cities, but to either "ensure that it locates its forces away from populated areas, or should evacuate civilians from areas where the military is operating" and explicit for "Militaries [to] never use hospitals to engage in warfare, and should only use schools or civilian homes as a last resort when there are no viable alternatives".
Regardless of whether you agree with the reporting and documentation of instances of military personnel engaging in these types of behaviours when they are the victim of a genocidal and unjust conflict led by an autocratic leader, there's no need for people to make falsehoods about what exactly is detailed in a publicly readable report.
The report, broadly speaking, covers a few areas which are grouped under 'launching attacks from heavily populated areas,' the 'establishment of military bases in hospitals', and 'the establishment of military bases in schools'.
The report is very explicit that while there are demonstrated and reported examples of how this explicitly resulted in "putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated area [...] not every Russian attack documented by Amnesty International followed this pattern, however. In certain other locations in which Amnesty International concluded that Russia had committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv, the organization did not find evidence of Ukrainian forces located in the civilian areas unlawfully targeted by the Russian military."
Contrary to certain posters claiming the report states Ukranian soldiers should "march out into the fields and get bombed", it specifically highlights cases where "viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians – such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas" (wooded areas being one suggestion). The report does not state an expectation that military operations should "leave civilian centers unprotected from fire" or "abandon the cities" but it does state that "military who located themselves in civilian structures in residential areas [had not] asked or [had not] assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings – a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians".
It, similarly, contrary to the user who stated it "was made without consultation with the AI people on the ground in Ukraine", highlights instances documented by Amnesty researchers where "Amnesty International researchers witnessed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. In two towns, dozens of soldiers were resting, milling about, and eating meals in hospitals. In another town, soldiers were firing from near the hospital." where "using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law". The report does not outright condemn or necessitate a non-usage of schools, however it does draw attention to how "if they do so, they should warn civilians and, if necessary, help them evacuate."
It's concluding statement puts the entire report, again (after opening with similar context setting), in a very clear context "The Ukrainian military's practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks. All parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects and take all feasible precautions, including in choice of weapons, to minimize civilian harm. Indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes".
The actions it suggests are not to abandon cities, but to either "ensure that it locates its forces away from populated areas, or should evacuate civilians from areas where the military is operating" and explicit for "Militaries [to] never use hospitals to engage in warfare, and should only use schools or civilian homes as a last resort when there are no viable alternatives".
Regardless of whether you agree with the reporting and documentation of instances of military personnel engaging in these types of behaviours when they are the victim of a genocidal and unjust conflict led by an autocratic leader, there's no need for people to make falsehoods about what exactly is detailed in a publicly readable report.
Last edited:
Where else are they supposed to go that isn't easy pickings for the invaders that are going to slaughter them all anyway?
There is almost no information and its all full of propaganda, no point following the news about the conflict.
User Banned (1 Week): Antagonising other members, account in junior phase
Why am I not surprised to see RustyNails pushing this report? Rusty is the same user who has continually bitched about the support being given to Ukraine, the same user who also whined about 'the lack of nuance' when this forum was discussing Russia's weaponising of Ukraine's grain supplies?
Oh, and I see he's still bitching about the support Ukraine is receiving in this very thread:
It doesn't matter how many Ukrainian lives are lost, or how millions are made homeless, or how many Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are tortured and maimed...Rusty has got to get his digs in. Fucking pathetic.
I'm so fucking tired of certain folks on this forum.
Oh, and I see he's still bitching about the support Ukraine is receiving in this very thread:
It doesn't matter how many Ukrainian lives are lost, or how millions are made homeless, or how many Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are tortured and maimed...Rusty has got to get his digs in. Fucking pathetic.
I'm so fucking tired of certain folks on this forum.
Amnesty International themselves have reported on Russia's use of indiscriminate bombing of civilians to instill submission, such as in Syria. I am not sure why they imply that relocating Ukraine's forces would lead to less civilians targeted when Russia, across conflicts, makes it a policy to intentionally murder ordinary people.
It is also inexcusable to link to the propaganda site The Grayzone. It is a disgrace to the organization that they have someone like that in such a high position. They should be removed.
But Amnesty as a whole does not have a history of ideology blinkered fact finding like some people here are suggesting. They have pursued human rights abusers that Putin apologists, including Marxists and right wing nationalists, have often ignored or even supported. China, Russia itself, Hungary, Brazil under Bolsonaro, Serbia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and many more.
I don't think it's fair to condemn the entire organization for the framing of this report, even though the framing is disturbingly naive about Russia, including the threat of eradication that looms over Ukraine.
It is also inexcusable to link to the propaganda site The Grayzone. It is a disgrace to the organization that they have someone like that in such a high position. They should be removed.
But Amnesty as a whole does not have a history of ideology blinkered fact finding like some people here are suggesting. They have pursued human rights abusers that Putin apologists, including Marxists and right wing nationalists, have often ignored or even supported. China, Russia itself, Hungary, Brazil under Bolsonaro, Serbia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and many more.
I don't think it's fair to condemn the entire organization for the framing of this report, even though the framing is disturbingly naive about Russia, including the threat of eradication that looms over Ukraine.
So this is the hill amnesty is going to die on huh?
Glad if the organization gets a reduction of funding. Actions have consequences
Glad if the organization gets a reduction of funding. Actions have consequences
Last edited: