Connect with us

Foreign

If Putin wins, expect the worst genocide since the Holocaust

Published

on

Today, Karolina Hird of the Institute of the Study of War in Washington DC considers the price for ordinary Ukrainians.

Over 800 days into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it is easy to see the war as merely lines and colour-coding on a map. While the lines and the military movements they represent matter, those abstractions obscure the human realities behind those lines.

To be clear from the start: Russia is actively, undeniably carrying out a genocide to destroy Ukrainian identity and independence. It does this by utilising ethnic cleansing campaigns, sexual violence, and the mass deportation of Ukrainian children as part of a “forced Russification” effort. I have been following this from Washington ever since the war began.

As such, if Russia wins, the worst genocide on European soil since the Holocaust is almost guaranteed.

Advertisement

The Kremlin has loudly proclaimed its intent to destroy Ukraine as a state and a nation. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 2021 essay “On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” called Ukrainians a confused people, unjustly and forcibly torn away from Russia by nefarious external forces. The Kremlin-controlled Russian Orthodox Church frequently espouses the “trinity doctrine,” the idea that Ukrainians (and Belarusians) belong to the Russian “nation” and must be “reunified.” 

Russian politicians and pundits frequently call Ukraine an “artificial concept” and a “fake country” that does not deserve to exist. Russia has adopted a whole-of-government approach to build the narrative that Ukraine and Ukrainians have no right to exist as a sovereign people in a sovereign state.

Given these officially stated aims, are the genocidal actions Russia has taken to pursue them any wonder? The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part” a specific group. 

The destruction need not be accomplished physically – actions taken to destroy a group’s identity without killing all members of the group also constitute genocide. The Russian genocidal project includes horrific acts of violence, to be sure, including summary executions, sexual assaults, arbitrary detentions, and torture. It includes the forcible deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia, which the Genocide Convention explicitly specifies also constitutes genocide. 

Advertisement

The deportation of Ukrainian children is a key component of Russia’s genocidal project – one that would only be extrapolated if Russia were to win the war and the rest of the country were seized by force. The Ukrainian government has verified the deportation of 19,546 Ukrainian children as of April 29, 2024. The true number is likely much, much higher considering that Ukrainian officials can only verify the deportation of children who have someone to vouch for their identity, leaving orphans and children without guardians unaccounted for. 

The Kremlin has facilitated and celebrated the deportation of children to Russia, claiming it offers children an opportunity to rest and rehabilitate after living in a war zone (which Russia created by invading Ukraine). These children are subject to Kremlin-approved re-education programmes along Kremlin-accepted social, linguistic, and cultural lines and sometimes forced into military training. 

Russian authorities have deported children to “rest” and “relaxation” camps throughout Russia, one of which in Russia’s Primorsky Krai is closer to Alaska than to Ukraine. High-ranking Kremlin officials, including Putin’s Commissioner on Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova, have personally adopted deported Ukrainian children. She now has an arrest warrant, issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Tens of thousands of Ukrainian young people are growing up under Russian military occupation, forcing them to abandon their language, culture, and history as the Kremlin seeks to destroy “in whole or in part” Ukrainian identity. This would become an entire generation were Moscow to subjugate Ukraine. Those already living under Russian occupation suffer daily efforts by Russian occupation authorities to strip them of their Ukrainian identity. 

Advertisement

Russian authorities co-opted the school system in occupied Ukraine under the euphemism of bringing it up to the “Russian standard”: teaching only the Kremlin-approved version of Russian history in which Ukraine has no independent identity and depriving children of access to Ukrainian-language education. Russian occupation authorities also use schools to militarise children, instilling in them Russian “military-patriotic ideals” and establishing a direct pipeline into Russian military–affiliated organisations to facilitate their future recruitment into the Russian military to fight against their compatriots. 

The thread of destruction and eradication runs through daily life in occupied Ukraine. Russian occupation officials have discussed forcibly deporting or summarily executing civilians who display characteristics deemed to be pro-Ukrainian or anti-Russian. Russian administrators use the threat of withholding access to basic goods and services to coerce Ukrainians to give up their Ukrainian passports for Russian ones, permanently changing the Ukrainian spelling of their names to the Russian version. Russian economic “enrichment” and infrastructure “development” projects cripple the ability of occupied areas to exercise economic self-sufficiency, generating devastating dependencies on the Russian federal government and driving a wedge between Kyiv and occupied territories.

Again, this constitutes genocidal behaviour, even when it is not exterminating people. 

That said, Russia’s efforts to destroy Ukraine include ethnically-cleansing occupied Ukraine by replacing Ukrainians with Russian citizens. Russian officials claim that Russia has “accepted” over 4.8 million Ukrainians, including 700,000 children, since the beginning of the war. 

Advertisement

There is no way to verify this number, but it emphasises the scale of movement to Russia from Ukraine since 2022, all of which occurred in the coercive context of Russian military occupation. The Kremlin is repopulating occupied Ukraine with Russian citizens to fundamentally alter its demographics and complicate future reintegration efforts. Based on examples of similar ethnic cleansing in the past, many will have inevitably died as a consequence. And that is before one even considers the blatant executions of innocent civilians by Russian soldiers, or the deliberate targeting of civilian population areas.

International legal procedure is set up to deal with atrocities after they happen. This is why Russian war crimes in Bucha, Izyum, Kherson City, and other liberated settlements have received widespread international attention and condemnation, and deservedly so. This is why the ICC has issued arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova, as their crime of facilitating the deportation of children is visible and evident. 

The international humanitarian community is less effective, however, at addressing what happens daily behind the frontlines. In many cases, Russia’s genocidal project in Ukraine is banal, mundane, and hard to track and prove. But every aspect of Russia’s occupation of Ukraine is deliberate and flows from Putin’s initial justification for the invasion. It is meant to make real the Kremlin lie that Ukraine has no right to exist and that there is no such thing as a Ukrainian people.

Ukraine is fighting a war for the survival of the Ukrainian people. Russia’s genocidal project is the purpose of Russia’s military operations, and Ukraine’s supporters must not separate the two. Should Ukraine fall to Russia on the battlefield, the rest of its people will fall victim to the genocidal project Russia is conducting in the lands it already controls, which “only” constitutes about 20 per cent of the country’s legal territory. Imagine how many millions would be victims of this abhorrent behaviour if it reaches 30 per cent, 40 per cent, or even 100 per cent. 

Advertisement

Indeed, many military experts would argue that Nazi-style tactics would be the only way to quell a population so vehemently opposed to Russia’s control. We would see horrors unfold daily.

We must face this reality squarely and stop blithely talking about offering “territorial” concessions to “stop the fighting” without forcing ourselves to confront the horrors that such concessions will inflict on the people living in those lands. 

Putin’s invasion was never about seizing limited bits of land. It was always about destroying a people. Ukraine’s supporters must therefore recommit themselves to the project of saving this people and showing that they will resist and defeat aggression and genocide on this scale.

Karolina Hird is Russia Deputy Team Lead and Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington DC.

Advertisement

She has contributed to the Telegraph’s daily podcast ‘Ukraine: The Latest’, your go-to source for all the latest analysis, live reaction and correspondents reporting on the ground. With over 85 million downloads, it is considered the most trusted daily source of war news on both sides of the Atlantic.

You can listen to one of her extended interviews on Russian war crimes here.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Foreign

Child-abuse scandal: Archbishop of Canterbury resigns

Published

on

The Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the global Anglican Church, Justin Welby, resigned on Tuesday, following a review that revealed senior church leaders covered up the widespread abuse of over 100 boys and young men.

The abuse was perpetrated by a British lawyer, John Smyth, who led Christian summer camps in the United Kingdom and other countries during the 1970s and 1980s.

The independent review, which was released last week, found that despite repeated efforts by individuals to bring Smyth’s actions to light, the response from the Church of England was inadequate, amounting to a cover-up.

Smyth, who died in South Africa in 2018 without facing any legal proceedings, abused boys and young men under his care for decades.

Advertisement

The review revealed that the church’s failure to act enabled Smyth to continue his abuse in the UK and abroad.

In a statement announcing his resignation, Welby expressed deep regret over the church’s failures.

“The last few days have renewed my long-felt and profound sense of shame at the historic safeguarding failures of the Church of England,” Welby said in the statement.

Welby admitted that he first learnt about the abuse allegations in 2013, the same year he became Archbishop, but acknowledged that his efforts to investigate and address the situation were insufficient.

Advertisement

He said, “For nearly twelve years I have struggled to introduce improvements. It is for others to judge what has been done.”

The Archbishop’s resignation came amid growing criticism from victims and other church leaders.

The Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley, remarked, “I think, rightly, people are asking the question: ‘Can we really trust the Church of England to keep us safe?’ And I think the answer at the moment is ‘no’.”

Survivor Andrew Morse, who was among those abused by Smyth as a teenager, called for Welby’s resignation.

Advertisement

He criticised the Archbishop’s handling of the situation, stating that had Welby acted decisively in 2013, further abuse could have been prevented.

He said Welby’s “admission that in 2013, which is really modern day in comparison to the 1970s and 1980s, that he didn’t do enough, that he wasn’t rigorous… is enough in my mind to confirm that Justin Welby, along with countless other Anglican churchmen, were part of a cover-up about the abuse,” Morse told the BBC.

The scandal has cast a long shadow over Welby’s tenure, which included officiating high-profile events such as the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and delivering the sermon at Queen Elizabeth II’s state funeral.

His resignation marked a moment for the Church of England, as it grapples with the legacy of abuse scandals and attempts to restore trust among its followers.

Advertisement

Welby concluded his statement by acknowledging the profound impact of the review’s findings, noting the pain endured by the victims and the failure of the church to protect those in its care.

“I am so sorry that in places where these young men, and boys, should have felt safe and where they should have experienced God’s love for them, they were subjected to physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual abuse,” he said.

Efforts to get the reactions of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and the Christian Association of Nigeria failed.

When contacted, the Communication Officer of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, Korede Akin, informed our correspondent that he could not speak on the issue, stating that only the Primate of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Henry Ndukuba, could provide the position of the church.

Advertisement

Similarly, the Director of National Issues and Social Welfare for the Christian Association of Nigeria, Abimbola Ayuba, told our correspondent that only the CAN President had the jurisdiction to speak on international matters, as he could only speak to issues of national concern or social welfare.

Meanwhile, efforts to reach the National Publicity Secretary of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, Bishop Emmah Isong, failed as his phone line was switched off.

Continue Reading

Foreign

President Trump Makes Several Key Appointments (FULL LIST)

Published

on

Donald Trump has begun the process of choosing a cabinet and selecting other high-ranking administration officials following his presidential election victory.

Here are the early picks and top contenders for some of the key posts overseeing defence, intelligence, diplomacy, trade, immigration and economic policymaking. Some are in contention for a range of posts.

Chief of staff

Trump on Thursday announced that Susie Wiles, one of his two campaign managers, will be his White House chief of staff. While the specifics of her political views are somewhat unclear, Wiles, 67, is credited with running a successful and efficient campaign. Supporters hope she will instill a sense of order and discipline that was often lacking during Trump’s first four-year term, when he cycled through a number of chiefs of staff.

Advertisement

Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Trump announced on Sunday night that Tom Homan, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement from his first administration, will be in charge of the country’s borders. Trump made cracking down on people in the country illegally a central element of his campaign, promising mass deportations.

UN ambassador

Trump announced on Monday that Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman and staunch Trump supporter, would be his ambassador to the United Nations.

Advertisement

Stefanik, 40, a US representative from New York state and House Republican conference chair, took a leadership position in the House of Representatives in 2021 when she was elected to replace then-Representative Liz Cheney, who was ousted for criticising Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

Treasure secretary

Scott Bessent, John Paulson; Larry Kudlow, Robert Lighthizer and Howard Lutnick considered for the role of potential treasury secretary. Bessent, a key economic adviser to Trump, is widely seen as a top candidate for treasury secretary. A longtime hedge fund investor who taught at Yale University for several years.

Commerce secretary

Advertisement

Linda McMahon is seen as the frontrunner to lead Trump’s Department of Commerce, three sources briefed on the plans said. Mcmahon is a Professional wrestling magnate and former Small Business Administration director

Secretary of state

Richard Grenell, Robert O’brien, Bill Hagerty and Marco Rubio, among the top choices for potential secretary of state. Grenell is among Trump’s closest foreign policy advisers.

O’Brien, Trump’s fourth and final national security adviser during his first term, maintains a close relationship with Trump, and the two often speak on national security matters.

Advertisement

Hagerty, a US senator from Tennessee who worked on Trump’s 2016 transition effort, Hagerty is considered a top contender for secretary of state. Rubio, a US senator from Florida and 2016 Republican presidential candidate, is also a top secretary of state contender whose policies hew closely to those of Trump.

Defence secretary

Mike Waltz, potential defence secretary. A former Army Green Beret who is currently a US congressman from Florida, Waltz has established himself as one of the foremost China hawks in the House. Among the various China-related bills he has co-sponsored are measures designed to lessen US reliance on critical minerals mined in China.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Foreign

UK universities face funding ‘crunch’ as foreign students go elsewhere

Published

on

By Francesca Hangeior.

 

UK universities are among the most prestigious in the world, but visa restrictions mean they are now attracting fewer international students — taking a heavy toll on their finances.

The restrictions are compounding problems caused by the UK’s departure from the European Union four years’ ago.

Advertisement

Almost 760,000 foreign students were enrolled in British universities in 2022, making Britain the second most popular destination after the US, in a highly competitive market.

Most come from India, then China and Nigeria.

But last year, the number of student visas fell by 5 percent. Between July and September, student visa applications slumped 16 percent compared to the same period last year.

The decline is a major cause of concern for higher education institutions since foreign students pay far more in fees than British students.

Advertisement

Leo Xui, 20 years old and from China, began studying population and health sciences at University College London in September.

“It’s good for my career,” he said of enrolling abroad. Thinking ahead to when he will return to China, he added: “I will be able to apply for a foreign company.”

His fees for the academic year are £31,000 (37,200 euros). British students attending universities in England have paid a maximum of £9,250 since 2017.

The Labour government, elected in the summer, announced last week that the cap would rise to £9,535 from next year, a move welcomed by universities who have been calling for an increase for years.

Advertisement

Universities UK (UUK), which represents 141 British higher education institutions, warned at its conference in September that funding per student is at its lowest level since 2004.

It estimates that the £9,250 fee is worth less than £6,000 because of inflation, leading to deficits in teaching and research.

“We are all feeling the crunch,” UUK president Sally Mapstone told the conference.

Universities have welcomed more foreign students in a bid to fill budget gaps, to the point where many are financially dependent on them.

Advertisement

According to a parliamentary report, foreign students make up more than half the student body at London’s University of the Arts and Cranfield University, a science and engineering institute just north of the British capital.

The Financial Times reported earlier this year that some universities, including York, have lowered their admission criteria to attract more students from abroad.

But the previous Conservative government, ousted from power in July, complicated the universities’ task by imposing restrictions on student visas as it sought to reduce record levels of regular migration.

It forbade foreign students from bringing family members with them, with a few exceptions, and prevented them from switching to work visas while studying.

Advertisement

In the first four months of 2024, there were 30,000 fewer applications from overseas than in the same period in 2023, according to official statistics.

“These hard numbers confirm our fear that the previous government’s changes have made the UK a less attractive study destination,” said Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute think-tank.

– Overseas campuses –
Provost Ian Dunn of Coventry University, where more than a third of the 30,000 students are from overseas said the Tories’ “narrative was very destructive”.

The university had already been impacted by Brexit.

Advertisement

“We had 4,400 students from the European Union. Now we’re probably at 10 percent of that,” he said, adding that the situation was “difficult”.

A lecturer at another English university told AFP that teaching positions as well as courses had been cut.

“The drop in international students has dramatically worsened the crisis for us,” she said on condition of anonymity because she was not authorised to talk to the media.

“Some have preferred to go to Canada, Australia or the Netherlands, where courses are taught in English,” she added.

Advertisement

Coventry University may have found the answer by partnering with institutions overseas to open campuses in several countries, including Egypt, Morocco, India and China.

At the end of their studies, students may not have set foot in the UK but they still “obtain a degree from Coventry University”, said Dunn.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Naija Blitz News