Amnesty report on Ukraine: Did you knowingly accept civilian casualties?

A report by Amnesty International accuses the Ukrainian military of endangering civilians. Kyiv rejects the allegations. What do other aid organizations and experts say about this?

“Ukrainian combat tactics endanger civilians”: This is the headline of an investigative report by the aid organization Amnesty International on violations of international law in the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine. In it, Amnesty complains that the Ukrainian troops are deliberately using civilian facilities such as schools or hospitals as military posts – and thereby unnecessarily endangering civilians.

The reactions to the report were not long in coming: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyj spoke of a “manipulative report”, and the Ukraine head of Amnesty resigned in protest. The human rights organization itself maintained the allegations – but distanced itself from the appropriation of the report by the Russian state media.

Cities are “main targets” of the Russian army

Ulf Steindl, researcher at the Austria Institute for European and Security Policy, sees major flaws in the Amnesty report. Among other things, the impression would be given that “Russian attacks on civilian buildings are primarily carried out because Ukrainian units are there”. However, there is no evidence of this.

“Rather, Russian units have been using weapons against residential areas since the first days of the war,” says Steindl. “This appears to follow a clear strategy designed to incite terror among the population and consequently lower morale.” In addition, the Ukrainian army rarely has the choice of where to defend. “The main objective of the Russian armed forces has repeatedly been to capture urban centers.” Because of the targeted attacks against residential buildings, it makes sense to station Ukrainian troops for defense.

For this, the Ukrainian army needs staging areas, logistics infrastructure, hospitals and protection, which is why schools and hospitals often have to be taken over. Amnesty’s report lacks detail and does not provide sufficient evidence of Ukrainian misconduct, Steindl said. “This does not mean that there were no misconduct on the Ukrainian side.”

Allegations against the Ukrainian army are not new

The allegations against the Ukrainian military are not entirely new. The human rights organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) had already warned in July that both Ukrainian and Russian military bases would endanger civilians. Specifically, the organization criticized the fact that both armies had set up military bases in populated areas without first bringing the residents to safety – a violation of international humanitarian law.

HRW wrote at the time of four cases under investigation in which Russian forces set up military bases in populated areas and unnecessarily endangered civilians. In three cases, Ukrainian forces stationed troops in houses where people lived.

A report by the UN Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) also accused the Ukrainian army of positioning troops near civilian facilities. At the same time, however, the OHCHR listed a significantly larger number and range of potential human rights abuses and war crimes by Russian soldiers.

“It’s a dilemma for Ukraine”

Erich Vad, former military policy advisor to Chancellor Angela Merkel, considers Amnesty’s allegations to be plausible. Ukraine would have an interest in shifting the fighting to urban areas if possible. “Militarily, it is the only way for Ukraine to slow down the Russian advance.” However, fights in urban zones are usually protracted and in any case very bloody. “It’s obviously a dilemma for Ukraine,” says Vad.

A threat to civilians is thus virtually unavoidable. “Russia, on the other hand, wants to minimize casualties in urban areas, so uses artillery to attack,” says Vad. As a result, both warring parties would accept that civilians would be harmed or killed.

Ralph Thiele, chairman of the Politic-Military Association, takes a similar view. “Shifting the fighting to urban areas is a classic weapon of the weaker in a war,” he says. But that is exactly what increases the likelihood of civilian casualties.

“From a military point of view, a tried and tested method”

“From a military point of view, it’s a tried and tested method,” says Vad. “The attacker has to use more resources and has more casualties, so it’s difficult to pin any blame on Amnesty International’s report.” Because avoiding a pitched battle outside of inhabited areas is often the only way to withstand a materially superior opponent. This was also practiced in earlier wars such as in Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq.

Vad explains his outrage at the report by Amnesty International with the fact that Ukraine, as a country under attack, is viewed morally differently in the West than Russia. “We are in an information war.” Therefore, any misconduct will of course be used by the other side for propaganda purposes. Thiele agrees. “A critical questioning of Ukraine is not wanted,” says Colonel a. D. “However, we must apply our values ​​to both warring parties.”

All warring parties must comply with international law

The excitement about Amnesty International’s report has a lot to do with the way the allegations are formulated and weighted. Zelenskyy, for example, spoke of a “perpetrator-victim reversal” since the Russian war crimes would not be mentioned. Even if that certainly plays a role from a moral point of view, it should be assessed differently from an international law perspective, says Stefan Talmon from the University of Bonn.

“Each act of war is assessed individually, even if the Russian war of aggression is generally against international law,” says the holder of the chair in international law. All warring parties are obliged to comply with international law. This also includes not putting civilians in danger. Military positions in civilian facilities could be viewed as “legitimate targets” and justify an attack, at least from the point of view of international law.

Final assessment not possible

That doesn’t mean, however, that the military is generally forbidden from operating near civilian populations and facilities, says Alexander Wentker, a research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. In practice, that is not even possible. “In accordance with international law, the defending party is therefore rather obliged to endeavor to remove the civilian population and civilian objects from the vicinity of military targets as far as this is at all possible.”

This includes avoiding setting up military targets in or near densely populated areas. However, Amnesty’s allegations could not be assessed conclusively due to the large number of circumstances that play a role in this. “Further, more detailed background information on the cases listed by Amnesty International would be required to assess Ukraine’s compliance or breach of these obligations.”