They always do that every few weeks, its not that unusual.

If putin was hell bent on "genocide" ,as most people understand the term, he would have bombed kiev and ukraine into the stone age. He did not. instead he has made things difficult for himself as a consequence of not going full total war. My understanding is that every country in the EU has not used the term "genocide" in the current war noting we have a bad history with this word. Genocide is currently being committed in multiple other countries around the world as we speak yet no in the Western world would lift a finger and said events are not even being reported officially as genocide.

In the round, I would say Putin is not committing genocide, but rather is engaging in a war in Ukriane, where alot of people are being killed and alot of war crimes are being committed (as occurs in all wars). Biden is now using terminology in order to put further pressure on Putin and Russia, noting the use of such terminology has ramifications.

to balance my above statement, i would let people make their own mind after reading this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention (and it may well be that after reading the below one will see this as genocide).

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 14 2022 03:24am

I think the correct term is "systematic terror against the civilian population". Putin evidently doesn't want to bomb all of Ukraine into the stone age, but he evidently wants to break the Ukrainian will and resolve.

yes, i agree with that, actually I would say is slightly differently, i.e. "systematic terror against Ukraine". thats the safer expression, but it could (and should) be rephrases to something more exact, which is, "war."

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 14 2022 03:28am

I think the correct term is "waging war", specifically against the armed forces that still put up resistance and the foreign-backed radical hate groups which have to be physically cleaned for the entire country to ever be normal again (azov, etc.)

There is no war in the universe where bombs will not come close to civilians and they will not be scared or terrified at times. Even when you're not really trying to hit them.

And yes, of course they want to break the "will and resolve" of their enemies who still put up a fight even though they are fighting a losing battle that they can't win. That is war, and the same was done by the US in Iraq, only in a much more brutal manner during shock & awe.

There is a great documentary on Netflix at the moment where a US journalist buses/trains/planes to Afghanistan and he is holed up in some tiny village in the middle of nowhere and there are trenches and trenches for miles in front of him, with fighting over yards, and hes like "WTF am i even doing here" and "how does this get resolved". He wakes up one morning and I dont think I will ever forget the quote "and then B52's came".

Is that Bucha? Then yeah they probably did.

The outrage is not about "normal" means of waging war that you just described - the outrage is about the atrocities committed against civilians and prisoners of war. Mass rape, mass executions and all that stuff.

Explosion clearly originates under the tank.